• 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!

Putin and his missile shield busting nuclear missiles? Space shield wasted money?

Do you believe Putin and will the new nukes cause Trump to join Putin in a new nuclear arms race?

  • I do believe Putin and yes, it will lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • I do believe Putin and no, it will not lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • I do not believe Putin but I think it will lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • I do not believe Putin but I thin it will lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • I am unsure of anything Comrade Putin says but I fear it will still lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • I am unsure of anything Comrade Putin says but it will not lead to a new nuclear arms race

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other, …....................... (please explain)

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
I doubt the Russians would ever launch a nuclear attack themselves directly against the US. They would use a proxy country, like Iran or N.Korea. OK, let's say Iran nukes a US military installation. Would we retaliate with a nuclear attack on Iran? How about if N. Korea nukes Hawaii. Would we retaliate with a nuclear attack on N. Korea? While those countries wouldn't care about fallout making the area they are attacking uninhabitable for centuries, the US would have to consider such side effects, and that might influence their response. Would we really nuke N. Korea knowing that it would probably make S.Korea uninhabitable? Would we really nuke Iran knowing other countries would be rendered uninhabitable? I just don't think it's as cut and dried as they nuke us and we nuke them back. It won't play out that way. It will start with proxy attacks and then it might, might escalate into the major players launching at one another. Even then I'm not so sure the US would be willing to ante up that far. I'm not so sure the US would be a willing participant in making the planet a burnt out cinder. Totalitarian governments are often suicidal but usually democracies aren't.

Actually the "uninhabitable for centuries" is not accurate, at least not for a nuclear bomb. One to five years is more the case. A meltdown of a nuclear reactor on the otherhand, such as Chernobyl, can make an area at least inside the cement sarcophagus uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
 
I don't really believe him but even if true it wouldn't make much difference. If Russia actually fired a nuclear weapon at us they likely wouldn't just fire a single missile but rather a whole lot of them. They wouldn't need to make a stealth one because they'd be firing more than one. It wouldn't make sense to just fire one if the goal is to attack us. Other countries know that they would have to take us completely out and they'd probably go down too. (We have nukes under the water.)

They would also have to take out all of our nuclear missile subs. That would be a tall order.
 
Putin today claimed he now has new nuclear weapons that makes the missile shield the US has created penetrable by their new missiles. So was the nuclear missile shield a waste of money? Or do we not believe Putin and his claims about having a missile that makes the shield useless?

Was creating the shield just a new phase of the nuclear weapons race that the Russians had no other option than to counteract? First question is an easy one, do you believe the Communist style leader of Russia Putin or do you believe he is bluffing and two will this create another new nuclear arms race under President Trump?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3641689/russia-new-missle-defence-busting-rockets-nuclear-submarines-bombers/

I think Condolezza Rice said it best the other day when she said that our missile defense system was never expected to stop hundreds of missiles coming our way. However, it was not a waste of money because an accidental launch or the rogue launch of a few missiles from Iran, North Korea, or whomever would hopefully be stopped. So, the question really doesn't have anything to do with Russia.
 
I think Condolezza Rice said it best the other day when she said that our missile defense system was never expected to stop hundreds of missiles coming our way. However, it was not a waste of money because an accidental launch or the rogue launch of a few missiles from Iran, North Korea, or whomever would hopefully be stopped. So, the question really doesn't have anything to do with Russia.

Yeah, not sure Russia felt that when the US had it's plans to make a missile shield sight on the Russian border (Poland). Which is a bit of a dangerous decision to make because one could know it would anger Russia. If it had been just meant to stop missiles from the Middle East or Asia, it would have been a lot smarter to put it somewhere in the South of Germany or the Netherlands, Spain or Italy, any country with no border with Russia.

That plan might have spurred Putin to make this plan for a new missile system.
 
Yes, and the US will be an equal wasteland because as said, they have the power and the weapons (according to themselves) to bomb the US regardless of whatever shield the US can think up (again, according to Putin). A Nuclear war has no winners IMHO, only loosers.

And yet, look at who the truly evil people are who have been pushing this since forever. Who are the deeply evil people who used these weapons just to highlight their power? Who are the deeply evil people who continue to illegally invade sovereign nations, terrorize small nations, steal the wealth of the poor of the world?

Dave Fagan nailed it, but all the Uncle Sam suckers only want to hear what is in their protected little bubbles.
 
I think Condolezza Rice said it best the other day .

You quote the war criminal, arch liar, terrorist Rice. Who's next, Pol Pot? Hitler? Fulgencio Batista, ... ? Perhaps you can give us quotes from any of the 73% of the world's dictators, which are all supported by the USA.

The problems of the world aren't the result of Putin's actions or those of China, Korea, Cuba, ... . They are caused solely by the war criminal/ terrorist nation the USA.

US Provides Military Assistance to 73 Percent of World's Dictatorships


For decades, the American people have been repeatedly told by their government and corporate-run media that acts of war ordered by their president have been largely motivated by the need to counter acts of aggression or oppression by "evil dictators." We were told we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. We had to bomb Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was an evil dictator, bent on unleashing a "bloodbath" on his own people. Today, of course, we are told that we should support insurgents in Syria because Bashar al-Assad is an evil dictator, and we must repeatedly rattle our sabers at North Korea's Kim Jong-un and Russia's Vladimir Putin because they, too, are evil dictators.

This is part of the larger, usually unquestioned mainstream corporate media narrative that the US leads the "Western democracies" in a global struggle to combat terrorism and totalitarianism and promote democracy.

I set out to answer a simple question: Is it true? Does the US government actually oppose dictatorships and champion democracy around the world, as we are repeatedly told?

The truth is not easy to find, but federal sources do provide an answer: No. According to Freedom House's rating system of political rights around the world, there were 49 nations in the world, as of 2015, that can be fairly categorized as "dictatorships." As of fiscal year 2015, the last year for which we have publicly available data, the federal government of the United States had been providing military assistance to 36 of them, courtesy of your tax dollars. The United States currently supports over 73 percent of the world's dictatorships!

US Provides Military Assistance to 73 Percent of World's Dictatorships
 
No, he thinks too highly of Putin (or so it seems) to be afraid of him, maybe too overly polite IMHO.

LOL Trump overly polite? Not a chance. Putin has something on him. You don't go to bed with dogs and NOT wake up with fleas.
 
There are some of you in the blue states who will end up paying more in the long run as under the tax bill, federal taxpayers will no longer subsidize state taxes. That should serve as a reminder next time you vote for a state governor, state senator or state legislator. But then those of you in the blue states seem to like taxes, so enjoy them.

You seem to have a firm belief that you have subsidized the states and taxpayers that support you. Can't help you with that. But you're right, I will pay more taxes in order to live where I do.
 
Actually the "uninhabitable for centuries" is not accurate, at least not for a nuclear bomb. One to five years is more the case. A meltdown of a nuclear reactor on the otherhand, such as Chernobyl, can make an area at least inside the cement sarcophagus uninhabitable for 20,000 years.

Well, that makes me feel much better. Fire away, then !!!!
 
You quote the war criminal, arch liar, terrorist Rice. Who's next, Pol Pot? Hitler? Fulgencio Batista, ... ? Perhaps you can give us quotes from any of the 73% of the world's dictators, which are all supported by the USA.

The problems of the world aren't the result of Putin's actions or those of China, Korea, Cuba, ... . They are caused solely by the war criminal/ terrorist nation the USA.

Your anti-American agenda doesn't win you any favor from either side here and is very tiring. I don't know what makes you think you could influence anyone on this board with your constant anti-American agenda. We already know your opinion.
 
I think it would depend on who is in the White House, who is in that administration, and who is leading Congress. For years our military has been inundated with political correctness. If we had a far left administration under these conditions I'm not confident we would retaliate; that would be seen as just causing further destruction. Besides, it might be viewed by such an administration that we were getting what we deserved, us being an evil scourge upon the world and all.

If ever we have had a President that would hand over the U.S. to them on a silver platter it is Trump. He has not even responded to the threats by Putin. It is unprecedented like all the ways he treats the regime in Moscow.
 
Your anti-American agenda doesn't win you any favor from either side here and is very tiring. I don't know what makes you think you could influence anyone on this board with your constant anti-American agenda. We already know your opinion.

I have no anti-American agenda. I have a dislike for the country that was supposed to be the embodiment of all that is good and all it has been is the embodiment of all that is bad. How could "the government of the people by the people for the people" ever let things go so so wrong?

I know it is tiring for you to hear the truth. It's like hearing your pa is a sexual predator, oh, wait, that's not a bad thing, that's what Trump is. It's like hearing your pa is a war criminal, oh wait, all US prezes have been war criminals. Oh hell, you know what I mean.
 
If ever we have had a President that would hand over the U.S. to them on a silver platter it is Trump. He has not even responded to the threats by Putin. It is unprecedented like all the ways he treats the regime in Moscow.

Oh my good the commies are coming, the commies are coming. Look under your beds and lock up your daughters!!!"

Are you happy that you have been brainwashed to be so damn paranoid?
 
If ever we have had a President that would hand over the U.S. to them on a silver platter it is Trump. He has not even responded to the threats by Putin. It is unprecedented like all the ways he treats the regime in Moscow.

Let's see,,,,Obama stonewalled European missile defense..... slow walked aid to the Ukraine...did very little but talk sanctions when Russia took over the Crimea.... ignored his own "red line" in Syria..... the Russian election meddling occurred on his watch.... mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia is our number one geopolitical enemy........
 
I agree that an attack would most likely come from a proxy country.

I disagree. I think the USA is the most likely first strike user of nukes. We've used them in the past and even as we were knowledgeable of their enormous destructive capability and still dropped them in heavily civilian populated areas. We constantly threaten to use them. We've killed 20 million or so of various nationalities since WWII. We helped Israel get nukes. We've used poison gas. The powers behind the throne do not think like you and I.
/
 
Oh my good the commies are coming, the commies are coming. Look under your beds and lock up your daughters!!!"

Are you happy that you have been brainwashed to be so damn paranoid?

I'm not paranoid. We have enough checks and balances to restrain the corrupt traitor in the oval office. Not to mention that his days are numbered.
 
Let's see,,,,Obama stonewalled European missile defense..... slow walked aid to the Ukraine...did very little but talk sanctions when Russia took over the Crimea.... ignored his own "red line" in Syria..... the Russian election meddling occurred on his watch.... mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia is our number one geopolitical enemy........

Obama sanctions after Crimea were painful enough to get Putin to hire Trump to end them. We did much of the heavy lifting in Syria and Trump just bowed out of peace talks to let Putin lead.

Donald Trump 'tried to roll back Russia sanctions the moment he got into power' | The Independent
 
I'm not paranoid. We have enough checks and balances to restrain the corrupt traitor in the oval office. Not to mention that his days are numbered.

Americans have always been paranoid. [caveat: there are some sensible ones.] Their governments fill their heads with the boogeyman du jour and they go all crazy. First it was the Muslims, all based on USA falsehoods, now the government has shifted back to Russia.

This is what has led to the US being at war for 93% of its years as a "nation".
 
Putin today claimed he now has new nuclear weapons that makes the missile shield the US has created penetrable by their new missiles. So was the nuclear missile shield a waste of money? Or do we not believe Putin and his claims about having a missile that makes the shield useless?

Was creating the shield just a new phase of the nuclear weapons race that the Russians had no other option than to counteract? First question is an easy one, do you believe the Communist style leader of Russia Putin or do you believe he is bluffing and two will this create another new nuclear arms race under President Trump?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3641689/russia-new-missle-defence-busting-rockets-nuclear-submarines-bombers/

It was never a shield.
At best it was counter missiles and maybe lasers, but they all depended (especially the lasers) on placement relative to the potential threat.

I'd say it was entirely possible that a hypersonic (extremely fast, thus much harder to track and shoot down) missile might effectively invalidate those defenses.


I'm just not sure Russia has it, but it's possible.
 
Obama sanctions after Crimea were painful enough to get Putin to hire Trump to end them. We did much of the heavy lifting in Syria and Trump just bowed out of peace talks to let Putin lead.

Donald Trump 'tried to roll back Russia sanctions the moment he got into power' | The Independent

Correction; Trump actually signed off on new sanctions. And didn't we just recently, under the Trump administration and military, kick the crap out of the Russians in Syria, leaving them with several hundred dead and wounded? Of course, for meddling in elections and spying, you can't beat the Chinese. But that isn't the liberal meme............
 
Correction; Trump actually signed off on new sanctions. And didn't we just recently, under the Trump administration and military, kick the crap out of the Russians in Syria, leaving them with several hundred dead and wounded? Of course, for meddling in elections and spying, you can't beat the Chinese. But that isn't the liberal meme............

Yeah us liberals made up all the meetings and conversations with Russian agents and Trump's campaign that were monitored all over the world by our allies. There is no way an innocent man would act like Trump has since he was elected either.
 
Yeah us liberals made up all the meetings and conversations with Russian agents and Trump's campaign that were monitored all over the world by our allies. There is no way an innocent man would act like Trump has since he was elected either.

The Obama administration’s Russian Reset began in Geneva on March 6, 2009. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton huddled with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and together they pressed a red button that should have been labeled “Reset” in Russian. Instead, Hillary’s aides had mislabeled it with the Russian word for “Overload.”

Obama announced on September 17, 2009, that he would cancel President George W. Bush’s plan to station missile-defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Hillary jetted to Moscow on October 13, 2009. “We’re delighted that a new Russian airline, Rosavia, is actively considering the acquisition of Boeing aircraft,” Clinton declared at Moscow’s Boeing Design Center. “The Ex-Im Bank would welcome an application for financing from Rosavia to support its purchase of Boeing aircraft.” On June 1, 2010, the Kremlin-owned Rostekhnologii company — now Rostec — decided to purchase up to 50 Boeing 737s for Russia’s national airline, Aeroflot. Price: $3.7 billion.
That August 17, just ten weeks later, Boeing unveiled a $900,000 gift to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary promoted Skolkovo, an “innovation city” near Moscow, backed by Kremlin seed rubles worth some $5 billion. The Clinton State Department persuaded Cisco, Google, and Intel, among others, to join Skolkovo. By 2012, the project boasted 28 “Key Partners” in America, Europe, and Russia. Three-fifths of these organizations donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton speaking fees. From Russia with Money, an August 2016 paper by the Government Accountability Institute, reported that 17 “Key Partners” contributed between $6.5 million and $23.5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

But by 2013, the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program warned: “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” Boston-based FBI agent Lucia Ziobro concluded in 2014, “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”

While visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary justified these actions: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans on June 8, 2010, to buy a 51.4 percent stake in Uranium One — This $1.3 billion purchase of a strategic-commodity company required the approval of the mysterious Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Hillary was one of nine federal-agency chiefs on CFIUS (pronounced SIPH-ee-us).

Three weeks later, Bill Clinton keynoted a Moscow conference staged by a Kremlin-tied investment bank that promoted Uranium One’s acquisition. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech that June 29. CFIUS let Rosatom purchase a majority stake in Uranium One. Subsequent investments pushed the Kremlin’s share of Uranium One to 100 percent by January 2013.

Soon after taking total control of Uranium One, Rosatom CEO Sergei Kiriyenko crowed: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves.”


Obama asked for Russia’s patience, “particularly with missile defense.” Obama added: “This is my last election. . . . After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev replied: “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
 
The Obama administration’s Russian Reset began in Geneva on March 6, 2009. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton huddled with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and together they pressed a red button that should have been labeled “Reset” in Russian. Instead, Hillary’s aides had mislabeled it with the Russian word for “Overload.”

Obama announced on September 17, 2009, that he would cancel President George W. Bush’s plan to station missile-defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Hillary jetted to Moscow on October 13, 2009. “We’re delighted that a new Russian airline, Rosavia, is actively considering the acquisition of Boeing aircraft,” Clinton declared at Moscow’s Boeing Design Center. “The Ex-Im Bank would welcome an application for financing from Rosavia to support its purchase of Boeing aircraft.” On June 1, 2010, the Kremlin-owned Rostekhnologii company — now Rostec — decided to purchase up to 50 Boeing 737s for Russia’s national airline, Aeroflot. Price: $3.7 billion.
That August 17, just ten weeks later, Boeing unveiled a $900,000 gift to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary promoted Skolkovo, an “innovation city” near Moscow, backed by Kremlin seed rubles worth some $5 billion. The Clinton State Department persuaded Cisco, Google, and Intel, among others, to join Skolkovo. By 2012, the project boasted 28 “Key Partners” in America, Europe, and Russia. Three-fifths of these organizations donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton speaking fees. From Russia with Money, an August 2016 paper by the Government Accountability Institute, reported that 17 “Key Partners” contributed between $6.5 million and $23.5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

But by 2013, the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program warned: “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” Boston-based FBI agent Lucia Ziobro concluded in 2014, “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”

While visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary justified these actions: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans on June 8, 2010, to buy a 51.4 percent stake in Uranium One — This $1.3 billion purchase of a strategic-commodity company required the approval of the mysterious Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Hillary was one of nine federal-agency chiefs on CFIUS (pronounced SIPH-ee-us).

Three weeks later, Bill Clinton keynoted a Moscow conference staged by a Kremlin-tied investment bank that promoted Uranium One’s acquisition. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech that June 29. CFIUS let Rosatom purchase a majority stake in Uranium One. Subsequent investments pushed the Kremlin’s share of Uranium One to 100 percent by January 2013.

Soon after taking total control of Uranium One, Rosatom CEO Sergei Kiriyenko crowed: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves.”


Obama asked for Russia’s patience, “particularly with missile defense.” Obama added: “This is my last election. . . . After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev replied: “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

I get it, you hate charities but neither Hillary or Obama are President and the Russians did not help them in the election either. Stick to the facts of this case and tell me why an innocent man would try to stop the investigations that would clear him?
 
I get it, you hate charities but neither Hillary or Obama are President and the Russians did not help them in the election either. Stick to the facts of this case and tell me why an innocent man would try to stop the investigations that would clear him?

So Trump fired Mueller? I hadn't heard. Got a source for that?

BTW; I support charities; I hate corruption. Bill getting $500,000 for one speech isn't charity. It's a payoff for services rendered.
 
So Trump fired Mueller? I hadn't heard. Got a source for that?

BTW; I support charities; I hate corruption. Bill getting $500,000 for one speech isn't charity. It's a payoff for services rendered.

So Bill should have turned down the offer? Would you? Yes Trump tried to fire Mueller....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

Trump is far more corrupt than the Clinton's ever dreamed of and most Americans agree his Administration is the most corrupt EVER.


A new public opinion poll conducted over the past two months found that Americans don’t believe that Trump is cleaning up the government. In fact, the opposite is true: 58 percent of people surveyed say the level of corruption has risen in the past 12 months, up from 34 percent who said the same in January 2016.

And more Americans put the blame at the top: 44 percent now believe that most or all of the officials in the Office of the President are corrupt—up from 36 percent last year, and worse than perceptions of Congress (38 percent of Americans believe Congress is the most corrupt institution).

Trump Administration Is the Most Corrupt Government Institution in the United States, Americans Believe
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom