65 years ago today

Werbung:
its ten and i got to get up at 3, ill read both sites tomorrow and hopefully someone on the other side of the fence will read it before that.

I tend not to trust you two on military matters but I will read the sites tomorrow
 
its ten and i got to get up at 3, ill read both sites tomorrow and hopefully someone on the other side of the fence will read it before that.

I tend not to trust you two on military matters but I will read the sites tomorrow

why would you not trust me on military matters? Name one time I said anything incorrect about military matters of fact ( My opinions are almost always backed by, military leaders, or Intel people ..or both)

Maybe I am to hawkish for you, you liberal Hippie. :p
 
Which is why we can't get rid of them just yet anyway. Perhaps when we've grown up as a species, in another thousand years or so.

Unless, of course, we blow ourselves up and have to start all over again with the stone age.

Why do we even want to get rid of them? I think there is a very good argument to be made that nuclear weapons have lead to one of the most peaceful times in human history.

Not to mention, the only way we kept Russia out of Western Europe post WWII was through the deployment of nuclear weapons and giving their operational control to field commanders. We would have been destroyed in a conventional war.
 
We've been making arms limitation deals with Russia since it was the Soviet Union and before. That is nothing new. We still have enough WMD to destroy civilization several times over, and so does Russia.

Hope that makes you feel safer.:D

It is the declared policy of the United States, and has been since we signed the NPT, to work towards a world that is free of nuclear weapons. It is not a new idea.
 
But we are getting rid of them. There was a deal a while back with Russia (who in my opinion cannot be trusted) and more deals to come.

Less money being put into defense exc. We are doomed as a nation if this continues but part of me figures we deserve it. And not because of anything we did in our past but because of the absolute fools we keep electing.

That deal unfortunately did absolutely nothing to really limit nuclear weapon levels. Russia has moved toward upgrading its tactical nuclear missile arsenal, and our arms agreements focus solely on strategic weapons.

Basically, all the deal did was give Obama cover to eliminate a few of our warheads, and Russia could save face because their weapons we "eliminated" with this deal were already slated for destruction and Russia had no plans to make new ones.

In my opinion, Obama blew it because he could have gotten something meaningful for that reduction, but he missed the opportunity.
 
We're still spending almost seven times as much on our military as second place China is spending on theirs. Surely, at least some of that money is not going to waste, isn't it?

China does not yet possess the capability to exert its influence worldwide in any manner close to the way we can.

That is slowly changing, and in my lifetime will be a major problem, but for now, that spending level is not really all that relevant in my opinion. You need to compare their spending levels to ours when they are actually capable of exerting the same influence we can globally.
 
Do you have some source for those figures? I have a hard time
believing obama is spending anything on new weapon ideas.

Obama is of course still spending money on the military. In terms of a percentage of GDP, overall military has gone down under him, but in terms of real dollars it has gone up.

I disagree with him on his nuclear positions (by and large, but not entirely), also on his F-22 decision, and entirely on his missile defense posture, but he has done some other things in terms of the military that I would support.
 
why would you not trust me on military matters? Name one time I said anything incorrect about military matters of fact ( My opinions are almost always backed by, military leaders, or Intel people ..or both)

Maybe I am to hawkish for you, you liberal Hippie. :p

Of course you left out that there are military experts/intel people that back up every side of a debate. ;)
 
Of course you left out that there are military experts/intel people that back up every side of a debate. ;)

Not always. but yes often...but normally the ones I site also are ones who are respected and experts in that area...unlike the other side in the debate ( when not you) often has nothing but ...well ok nothing lol
 
65 years ago today, Aug. 5, 1945, the first atomic bomb ever used in anger was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, on August 8, another was carried over Kokura, Japan. Kokura was found to be obscured by a 70% cloud cover, so the plane was diverted to Nagasaki, where the bomb was dropped. Approx. 200,000 people were killed as a result of the two bombings.

Less than 2 weeks later, Japan surrendered, ending WWII. As a result, the planned Allied invasion of the Japanese homeland was called off. The half million American deaths that were expected, plus more than a million Japanese deaths, never happened as a result.
Why do you think it was the first atomic bomb ever used in anger? Try researching the Agneya weapon, the Bharata Wars, the kashta, the kalpa... cr@p, even Oppenheimer (who could read Sanskrit) didn't believe that. You can't even tell the difference between the ancient Trinitite circles in the Gobi from the modern ones from China's testing.
 
Obama is of course still spending money on the military. In terms of a percentage of GDP, overall military has gone down under him, but in terms of real dollars it has gone up.

I disagree with him on his nuclear positions (by and large, but not entirely), also on his F-22 decision, and entirely on his missile defense posture, but he has done some other things in terms of the military that I would support.

OK we know he is destroying current missiles right? Is he putting money into other types of missiles or defense weapons?
 
OK we know he is destroying current missiles right? Is he putting money into other types of missiles or defense weapons?

What do you mean by "missiles"? Are you talking about missile defense, or just in general?
 
What do you mean by "missiles"? Are you talking about missile defense, or just in general?

Both?

There was the treaty signed with Russia to destroy a number of I guess old missiles and I did not think there were any new ones being made by us. PLC1 seemed to disagree with me. He did post a link that I never read I got too busy.
 
Werbung:

Well, in terms of missile defense, I don't really think you can say he is "destroying" missiles. He is basically looking to shift away from the GMD system and move towards a more robust Aegis crisis capability and a deployment of SM3-BlockIIA. That missile is currently in development, and he has cut some funding for that, which to me shows that its deployment (and by extension a credible missile defense shield) is not a priority for the White House.

He also eliminated the ABL and thte MKV. The ABL I did not have a problem with ending that, but I think the MKV is imperative to any missile shield, so I was disappointed to see that.

So, in terms of missile defense, he did stop the deployment of some some missiles as part of the GMD framework, but (in theory at least) he will deploy the SM3-BlockIIA by (if I remember right) 2015. Ultimately, I think his missile defense plan was better than the Bush plan, but my problem comes that he is not really making it a priority, and I think deployment will be delayed far beyond his proposed time frame.

There was the treaty signed with Russia to destroy a number of I guess old missiles and I did not think there were any new ones being made by us. PLC1 seemed to disagree with me. He did post a link that I never read I got too busy.

I assume you are talking about the new START treaty. You are correct Obama has signed the Treaty, however the Senate still has to ratify it to have any effect... that will require 2/3rds of the Senate, which will require some Republican support.

Now, the biggest complaint I have seen against the treaty is the conversion of ICBM solos to missile defense sites... but I don't think that is actually going to be a problem in the military.

My problem with the treaty is that is basically allows the Russians to maintain strategic nuclear parity with the United States, and at the same time, language was included (while non-binding I believe) that will limit American missile defense capability. So ultimately we are left with strategic parity with the Russians, but it ignores the problem of shifting Russian views to more of a tactical nuclear arsenal, which will not be covered. If that is ignored, then any new arms agreements is really meaningless in my opinion.

Basically, in terms of nuclear parity, it puts the US behind Russia, and while that does not mean a ton, it can be important in terms of a credible nuclear umbrella, which helps to prevent further proliferation globally.
 
Back
Top