HORRORS!!! Obama Proposes DEFENSE-Spending CUTS!!

[Mr. Shaman]

Hell.....spending has only increased 70%, since 2001!!!! ​

"According to Fox Noise, Obama is proposing a measly 10% cut in the Pentagon's declared budget."​

 

[BigRob]

Hell.....spending has only increased 70%, since 2001!!!! ​

I know you would think we were not fighting two wars and a global terror movement....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I know you would think we were not fighting two wars and a global terror movement....

Yeah.....I've heard......


​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah.....I've heard......


​

Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty was to enable the United States to develop a missile defense system targeting rouge nuclear nations.

The current missile shield is 100% incapable of preventing an attack from a nation such as Russia. Russia is using the missile shield deployment as an excuse to go after new missile technology and warhead designs. In reality, our missile shield never could, and never will, prevent a nuclear attack from Russia.

 

[Andy]

Do you mean that it's impossible for for us to be able to shoot down in incoming missile with a nuclear warhead? Or just that our current system isn't capable of doing so?

 

[Andy]

Hell.....spending has only increased 70%, since 2001!!!! ​

Well yippy skip... The "brilliant" Obama plans to cut a few billion from the military budget (which we need), while blowing $1.8 Trillion on failed government programs (which we don't need). This is a good move in you opinion?

 

[Pandora]

Well yippy skip... The "brilliant" Obama plans to cut a few billion from the military budget (which we need), while blowing $1.8 Trillion on failed government programs (which we don't need). This is a good move in you opinion?

the drooling bots wont get it till we are attacked in a massive way, then its going to be too late.

 

[BigRob]

Do you mean that it's impossible for for us to be able to shoot down in incoming missile with a nuclear warhead? Or just that our current system isn't capable of doing so?

I believe our system is capable of shooting down a very small number of incoming missiles. It is clearly targeted towards rouge nuclear threats.

What it cannot prevent would be a Russian attack. Given the amount of missiles and warheads Russia has, it would simply be overwhelmed.

Take the example in the Czech Republic. The proposed deployment was for 10 interceptors. 10 interceptors is no threat to the kind of attack Russia could enact.

 

[Pandora]

Rob, how long would it take to get our systems caught up?

Considering we are already behind, and with cuts we will get really really behind. In 4 years if we got a president who actually took this stuff seriously, how long would it take him to catch up?

 

[BigRob]

Rob, how long would it take to get our systems caught up?

Considering we are already behind, and with cuts we will get really really behind. In 4 years if we got a president who actually took this stuff seriously, how long would it take him to catch up?

Well, depends on what you want the system to be geared towards. If you want it to stop a total Russian onslaught.. I would say it will never get caught up.

If you want it to stop rouge threats like North Korea or Iran, we are doing alright I would say, but we need to continue funding and deployments. Cutting these only sets us back. I would also argue that we do not need to negotiate new arms controls deals with Russia. I think this blows a window of opportunity we have with Russia. Immediately negotiating about nuclear weapons shapes our relationship completely about nuclear weapons. That solidifies the notion of "adversary" in the public discourse in both countries.

We have had some successful tests, but we need to continue to improve the technology. However, a missile shield cannot defend against alternative methods of delivery.

 

[Pandora]

Well, depends on what you want the system to be geared towards. If you want it to stop a total Russian onslaught.. I would say it will never get caught up.

If you want it to stop rouge threats like North Korea or Iran, we are doing alright I would say, but we need to continue funding and deployments. Cutting these only sets us back. I would also argue that we do not need to negotiate new arms controls deals with Russia. I think this blows a window of opportunity we have with Russia. Immediately negotiating about nuclear weapons shapes our relationship completely about nuclear weapons. That solidifies the notion of "adversary" in the public discourse in both countries.

We have had some successful tests, but we need to continue to improve the technology. However, a missile shield cannot defend against alternative methods of delivery.

That is more hopeful than I thought.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In reality, our missile shield never could, and never will, prevent a nuclear attack from Russia.

I guess Lil' Dumbya's MBA wasn't designed to cover $uch i$$ue$.​

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I know you would think we were not fighting two wars and a global terror movement....

we are fighting 2 wars? realy cuz we where told Iraq is not even a occupation now But of course even if its not even a occupation let alone a war now, its wrong to suggest we start pulling out.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

we are fighting 2 wars? realy cuz we where told Iraq is not even a occupation now But of course even if its not even a occupation let alone a war now, its wrong to suggest we start pulling out.

Absolutely!!

I'm waitin' for the "conservatives" to pull-out their ol' 'Nam-card: "Where are all o' these guys gonna WORK, if we bring them home??!!!"​

 

[BigRob]

we are fighting 2 wars? realy cuz we where told Iraq is not even a occupation now But of course even if its not even a occupation let alone a war now, its wrong to suggest we start pulling out.

What does this have to do with anything? Who cares what you call it? We are still there and have to pay for it.

Anyway, what will get cut in future weapons development. Which I think is a travesty. We need to continually remain on the cutting edge in my opinion.