• 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

there's no evidence that missile defense systems don't work...LOL

How about the 70% failure rate? How about the fact the only time we actually get an interceptor hit is when we have planned the test, we have the trajectory already programmed into the interceptor, we do not use decoys or interference and we do not test more then 1 incoming missile at any time? Note, none of that portrays a real attack in any way.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to actually attack America with a missile.

Missile defense only works against a country stupid enough to launch a few missiles with no decoys, no interference spending huge amounts on reliability and accuracy when they could get the same effect for 1/1000th of the price by just smuggling nukes in via cargo ships. And reduce the likelihood of a counter strike.

Missile defense is socialist industrial policy merely existing to employ people for the sake of employment.
 
The man is a real irresponsible idiot but some people here say he is brilliant. This is another proof that I was right. This idiot wants us all killed.

Okay, tell me how agreeing not to use launch facilities for missile defense we never planned on using in the first place makes us more insecure.

Okay, tell me how not having inspectors in Russia doing inventory and interviewing scientists makes us more insecure.
 
Hey Albert Di Salvo,

If Iran is so crazy, why haven't they used their huge stockpile of chemical weapons against Israel? Especially since they've had it for decades. They could wipe out Israel with that. Why haven't they done it?

Iran's leadership is just as sane as other country's. They have no intention of dying or losing power. And everything they do shows that. Did they themselves risk their own lives in Iraq? No. Did they risk open conformation with Israel? No. they fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah. They never risk their own necks.
 
The man is a real irresponsible idiot but some people here say he is brilliant. This is another proof that I was right. This idiot wants us all killed.

No. Not all of us. I've heard he's singled you out. Just you. He must have heard you'd like him assassinated. He's implementing the Bush doctrine on ya, you betcha.
 
Because he's being dishonest.

The US is barred from using existing silos and launch pads formerly used in ICBM systems for missile defense.

That would appear to be a problem for the ignorant but not for the educated. Especially considering the US was never planning on using those sites in the first place for missile defense. A sizable portion of the US missile defense is based off ships. Furthermore, it would be cheaper just to build specific launch sites for interceptors rather then completely renovate old systems and silos.

Basically, you're bitching about a cost savings measure.

Navy vet here. I was looking for this sanity. Thanks. I don't think these folks quite understand what our arsenal is, and where it is. Delivery systems are Ballistic Missile submarines and B-2 bombers. Our ICBM's are in places like Diego Garcia. Staging for Air Force nuclear ops is Alabama. Nukes themselves are in places like North Dakota. We also have drones now as well as cruise missiles which can be delivered in a myriad of ways.

If I remember right, the silos are gone.
 
Navy vet here. I was looking for this sanity. Thanks. I don't think these folks quite understand what our arsenal is, and where it is.

Indeed. Detractors appear to fall into two categories.

1) The Dishonest. Generally those have a real vested stake in the current system or see the ability to milk the program for money. Or who simply do not want Obama to get any credit for anything good.

2) The Ignorant. Those who can't figure out the difference between a production/maintence facility and a launch platform. Those who don't understand the demographics and geography of Russia. Those haven't the faintest clue about MAD and nukes in general. And those who don't understand the US delivery system. Pretty much every detractor here falls into this one. The GOP senators who held up the bill are dishonest.

Delivery systems are Ballistic Missile submarines and B-2 bombers.

And a few silos. But as I understand it, the US has seriously atrophied that arm. And it makes sense to. Silos are known. And there's nothing we can do to protect a silo against a huge nuke. Planes and subs are much harder to track and wipe out in a first strike. And then there's the rumor the US (and the USSR) put up nukes in space. A simple command to change orbit would bring down death from above. And it's not easy to figure out which satellite may be harboring a MRV.

Our ICBM's are in places like Diego Garcia. Staging for Air Force nuclear ops is Alabama. Nukes themselves are in places like North Dakota. We also have drones now as well as cruise missiles which can be delivered in a myriad of ways.

If I remember right, the silos are gone.

All of them? I thought we had a few running.
 
Who cares?
It can work well all it wants to - shooting down a missle in every test. But if we're under an attack just HOW effective is such a system going to be?

If The Russians are lobbing missiles at us the last thing I'm going to be thinking is "good thing we've got that anti-missile defense silos in place!"

It's a false comfort - and an unnecessary expense.

Unfortunately, the only way to find that out, is to employ the system in an actual attack.

One thing's for certain, it definitely won't work if it isn't employed. That constitutes a guaranteed 100% failure rate. I'll take a 70% failure rate over that, any day.
 
All of them? I thought we had a few running.

Great post. You may be right about a few silos left. I'm not sure. All I know is you can't track a nuclear sub and a B-2 looks like a bird on radar. Besides, everyone knows one certain truth, imo: Should a nation launch first, it will be the last thing they ever do. Period.
 
Last edited:
Navy vet here. I was looking for this sanity. Thanks. I don't think these folks quite understand what our arsenal is, and where it is. Delivery systems are Ballistic Missile submarines and B-2 bombers. Our ICBM's are in places like Diego Garcia. Staging for Air Force nuclear ops is Alabama. Nukes themselves are in places like North Dakota. We also have drones now as well as cruise missiles which can be delivered in a myriad of ways.

If I remember right, the silos are gone.

Uh, yeah, that's because it's like, secret? Uh, yeah...
 
Unfortunately, the only way to find that out, is to employ the system in an actual attack.

So why do we always test it under conditions nothing like a real attack? And we STILL fail 70% of the time.

One thing's for certain, it definitely won't work if it isn't employed. That constitutes a guaranteed 100% failure rate. I'll take a 70% failure rate over that, any day.

Or we could just rely on MAD and focus on the real ways they'll nuke us. And it would cost less.

Why on EARTH would a state put all of the effort into a few missiles that would be shot down when they could just ship it via cargo container?

Missile Defense is a socialist employment program. Nothing more.

Uh, yeah, that's because it's like, secret? Uh, yeah.

Um, not all of it. And much of it has been in the public knowledge for thirty or so years. You'd know that if you bothered to educate yourself before posting
 
Last edited:
So why do we always test it under conditions nothing like a real attack? And we STILL fail 70% of the time.



Or we could just rely on MAD and focus on the real ways they'll nuke us. And it would cost less.

Why on EARTH would a state put all of the effort into a few missiles that would be shot down when they could just ship it via cargo container?

Missile Defense is a socialist employment program. Nothing more.



Um, not all of it. And much of it has been in the public knowledge for thirty or so years. You'd know that if you bothered to educate yourself before posting

I was about to agree with you until you hit the 'socialist' thing - when you overuse a false accusation you wear it out and turn it into just an old, abused and worn out term that means nothing.

But up until that point I did agree with you - but on the basis that the system is purely a fail - pointless - and a classic waste of money. . . right along with the damned Osprey and Sharks with laser beams attached to their foreheads.
 
I was about to agree with you until you hit the 'socialist' thing - when you overuse a false accusation you wear it out and turn it into just an old, abused and worn out term that means nothing.

That's the point. I'm trying to make the term worthless so that the idiots here who don't understand it stop using it. When they call a private sector medicial insurance bill "Socialist" they need to be smacked in the head. But in some aspects, Missile Defense is just a handout to companies and connected individuals.

But up until that point I did agree with you - but on the basis that the system is purely a fail - pointless - and a classic waste of money. . . right along with the damned Osprey and Sharks with laser beams attached to their forheads.

I have to disagree with you on the sharks. That would be 150% awesome.
 
So why do we always test it under conditions nothing like a real attack? And we STILL fail 70% of the time.

Or, we could have just kept developing Star Wars and inrecepted those missiles before they re-entered the atmosphere.



Or we could just rely on MAD and focus on the real ways they'll nuke us. And it would cost less.

Why on EARTH would a state put all of the effort into a few missiles that would be shot down when they could just ship it via cargo container?

Missile Defense is a socialist employment program. Nothing more.

Because a nuke in shipping container will only kill a buncha people, in a coastal city, leaving all our nuke intact for retaliation. Only a complete dumbass would launch a nuke strike, without mingling in some point strikes to neutralize retaliatory systems. Oh, wait, I'm sorry 'bout that.





Um, not all of it. And much of it has been in the public knowledge for thirty or so years. You'd know that if you bothered to educate yourself before posting

Care to show it to us?
 
That's the point. I'm trying to make the term worthless so that the idiots here who don't understand it stop using it. When they call a private sector medicial insurance bill "Socialist" they need to be smacked in the head. But in some aspects, Missile Defense is just a handout to companies and connected individuals.

Oh - so by you using it out of context you're trying to make others look stupid?

It's not working - I advise another tactic then.

I have to disagree with you on the sharks. That would be 150% awesome.

LOL - touche!
 
Uh, yeah, that's because it's like, secret? Uh, yeah...

Um, actually, they're not, um, like, secret. Never were. Built in plain view for a reason. Missile silos are 10 miles away from the Launch Controls. When Salt II treaty decommissioned half of the missiles, they were destroyed on site and left out for the soviets to verify by satellite imagery back in the eighties.

Duh.

Tell ya what, Kid Rock boy: When you have actually served this country you claim to love oh so much, and have been blown up on her behalf, then talk to me. Until then, seriously, shut up when it comes to things you know nothing about.

Kev316, HM2, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, 2nd Marine Division. Beirut, 1983.

1-8MARINES.png
 
The better and smarter and cheaper course of action is for America to simply withdraw from political and military relations with countries in the eastern hemisphere. If America does that neither China nor North Korea will be a threat. The Chinese and North Koreans will be preoccupied with the nuclear weapons programs that arise in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Nice post. Just FYI, the likelihood of a nuclear weapons program in Taiwan is almost zero-. The China-friendly KMT isn't interested in pursuring it as they are trying to make buddy-buddy with Beijing and the pro-localization DPP has repeatedly said it completely renounces any nuclear weapons development. Stupid in my opinion, but that's that. I do agree that Japan and South Korea would under such a scenario develop them, and could do so in short order.
 
You are absolutely right. The Russians and Americans have different legal interpretations of the effect of the clause in question in the Preamble of the Treaty. The Russians say it is mandatory and the Americans say it is precatory.

These different interpretations give the Russians a public relations club with which to shape the actions of future American presidents.

But only operative clauses of treaties and resolutions are binding, not perambulatory ones... but you are right, it will be used as a PR club...
 
Um, actually, they're not, um, like, secret. Never were. Built in plain view for a reason. Missile silos are 10 miles away from the Launch Controls. When Salt II treaty decommissioned half of the missiles, they were destroyed on site and left out for the soviets to verify by satellite imagery back in the eighties.

Duh.

Tell ya what, Kid Rock boy: When you have actually served this country you claim to love oh so much, and have been blown up on her behalf, then talk to me. Until then, seriously, shut up when it comes to things you know nothing about.

Kev316, HM2, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, 2nd Marine Division. Beirut, 1983.

1-8MARINES.png

Ohhh.. . one of those "I've served, you haven't so SHUT UP!!!" Sorry, in a free society, it doesn't work that way...

Thanks for serving, but perhaps you should try to live by the ideals your service were meant to protect...
 
No. Not all of us. I've heard he's singled you out. Just you. He must have heard you'd like him assassinated. He's implementing the Bush doctrine on ya, you betcha.

His Liberal irresponsiblity is beyond comprehention.
 
Um, actually, they're not, um, like, secret. Never were. Built in plain view for a reason. Missile silos are 10 miles away from the Launch Controls. When Salt II treaty decommissioned half of the missiles, they were destroyed on site and left out for the soviets to verify by satellite imagery back in the eighties.

Duh.

Tell ya what, Kid Rock boy: When you have actually served this country you claim to love oh so much, and have been blown up on her behalf, then talk to me. Until then, seriously, shut up when it comes to things you know nothing about.

Kev316, HM2, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, 2nd Marine Division. Beirut, 1983.

1-8MARINES.png

Ok, well, show us the locations of all our nukes, sense it's such openly public information.

Thank you for your service.

"Kid Rock Boy",

5/6 Infantry 87-89

1/8 Cavalry 89-92--Desert Storm

601st Ordinance Battalion Small Arms Repair Course June, July, August 92

4/6 Infantry 92-95--reassigned in October of 94 to LRRP-D after completion of aitborne training at Fort Benning.

1/30 Infantry 95-98

1/26 Infantry 98-2001--Kosovo and Macedonia.
 
Ohhh.. . one of those "I've served, you haven't so SHUT UP!!!" Sorry, in a free society, it doesn't work that way...

Thanks for serving, but perhaps you should try to live by the ideals your service were meant to protect...

Actually, it does work that way when a fool mocks someone who knows what he's talking about. In this case, missile silos not being secret. Did you bother to review the smart remark the prompted this reply? I was discussing with another member if there were any silos left. I thought no, he thought maybe. Then this out of the blue:

"Uh, yeah, that's because it's like, secret? Uh, yeah..."

So yes, in this case it does work that way, and thanks is not welcome from cons when it comes to my service. Never will be. You got a bunch of us killed for no good reason and did it again in Iraq. You guys are real tough as long as you aren't getting shot at or blown up at 6:00 am.

Some of us actually have skin in the game.
 
Ok, well, show us the locations of all our nukes, sense it's such openly public information.

Thank you for your service.

"Kid Rock Boy",

5/6 Infantry 87-89

1/8 Cavalry 89-92--Desert Storm

601st Ordinance Battalion Small Arms Repair Course June, July, August 92

4/6 Infantry 92-95--reassigned in October of 94 to LRRP-D after completion of aitborne training at Fort Benning.

1/30 Infantry 95-98

1/26 Infantry 98-2001--Kosovo and Macedonia.

Okay, I stand corrected. And thank you.

Desert Storm was another con lie: See April Glaspie and Dick Cheney for more info. It's not like we were fighting anything but old men on that border, dude. The Republican Guard was in Baghdad. We simply buried them alive with bulldozers. Oh sure, we shot a few, but how much sport was there in killing old men and young boys?

Kosovo: Excellent job, guys. I mean that.

Iraq: Please.

Afghanistan: Another mess cons left. Of course, capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora and no reason to invade Iraq. Cons should be kissing Obama's feet for not pursuing war crimes tribunals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom