Republicans against debt...but not really...

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I am going to weigh in on this point... many elements of the Star Wars program make up an integral part of our current missile defense shield. While deployment of Star Wars as Reagan envisioned did not occur, the technology went a long way to pushing our missile defense system.

That said, Russia was in fact quite worried about such a program.. statements from their officials confirm it... It is also rumored that Reagan offered to give all the Star Wars technology to the Russians to allay their concerns, which of course they rejected, rumored because they just didn't believe he would offer that for real.

So no, Star Wars did not bring down the Russians, but it played a vital role in the development of our current missile shield.

I have no doubt it played a major role in what we have today, but I don't think anyone really believed Regan was going to make the system he talked about..even today its just a fantasy. in the 1980s in order to build his system, seemed more based on ..what we can do in a movie..vs what we knew how to do in real life...I am sure some Russian leaders did for some reason belive in the system...just as some republicans here actually thought the system could be built..Lucky for us the Russians are a paranoid bunch anyway...the real gain from saying we would build such a system...was not them spending so much they fell apart ( Afghanistan had alot more to do with that) but rather that it helped when making a new arms deal on nukes with the USSR..

Looking at where our tech as at the time, we just need to look at how the Patriot actually , contrary to reports and pushed by the media in the gulf war , did pretty poorly against slow SCUDS...often hitting the missile but not the warhead ( kinda a big deal to stop a nuke..less with a normal scud..though still damaging) But I think with or without the idea of star wars...a decent amount of what we have today would still be in place as far as anti missile tech...as from the day of the first missile, it was always a idea....its always just been a matter of waiting for tech to catch up to it. And for the cost to get to the point it was doable.

on a side note...the issue that scares me about having a huge missile defense...is that others will of course in time have there own...with Non...MAD applies...you fire we fire we all die...no one wins....add the shield...people start thinking...maybe they can win a nuclear full attack...as they think there defense will save them, but not the others,,,,a scary thought.

on the scale of why USSR fell I rank it pretty small...very small.
First being, the system was rotton and left 2 options..major reform..or fail...waited to long and was left with only fail, as it lost the willpower to use force to continue to hold its satellites.
Afganistan being 2nd.
and third being strength of moments like Solidarity in Poland..
as far as people its a huge list all who helped in major ways..from JFK to the Pope, to Charlie willson and a few in the CIA..to the Mujaheddin..including people like Bin Ladin..who as evil and bad as he may be...played a pretty big role...and yes Reagan...I just think its sad when people act like he deffeted the USSR by himself, or was even the major reason why it fell...he was not..he was a player...but one of many...

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I have no doubt it played a major role in what we have today, but I don't think anyone really believed Regan was going to make the system he talked about..even today its just a fantasy. in the 1980s in order to build his system, seemed more based on ..what we can do in a movie..vs what we knew how to do in real life...I am sure some Russian leaders did for some reason belive in the system...just as some republicans here actually thought the system could be built..Lucky for us the Russians are a paranoid bunch anyway...the real gain from saying we would build such a system...was not them spending so much they fell apart ( Afghanistan had alot more to do with that) but rather that it helped when making a new arms deal on nukes with the USSR..

Don't overlook the fact that an adversary thinking a system will work (even if there is no chance it will, which is not entirely true in the SDI case) is almost as effective as the system actually working.

Looking at where our tech as at the time, we just need to look at how the Patriot actually , contrary to reports and pushed by the media in the gulf war , did pretty poorly against slow SCUDS...often hitting the missile but not the warhead ( kinda a big deal to stop a nuke..less with a normal scud..though still damaging) But I think with or without the idea of star wars...a decent amount of what we have today would still be in place as far as anti missile tech...as from the day of the first missile, it was always a idea....its always just been a matter of waiting for tech to catch up to it. And for the cost to get to the point it was doable.

Yes, it is true that the Patriot batteries deployed in the Gulf often hit the missile and not the warhead, but remember, that is how they were designed at the time.

And also remember, Patriot batteries deployed in the Gulf are just an area missile defense, it would still be effective eliminating a missile (even if only knocking the warhead off track) in its midcourse phase (assuming Brilliant Pebbles ever really went anywhere), thus protecting the homeland.

Remember, no one thought a nuclear war with Russia would take place only in Europe (or the Gulf etc), it would take place in Russia and the US.

on a side note...the issue that scares me about having a huge missile defense...is that others will of course in time have there own...with Non...MAD applies...you fire we fire we all die...no one wins....add the shield...people start thinking...maybe they can win a nuclear full attack...as they think there defense will save them, but not the others,,,,a scary thought.

MAD is an outdated theory in my opinion that was never backed with any tangible evidence...

The argument (boiled down for simplicity) goes likes this:
Question: Why did MAD work?
Answer: We did not have a nuclear war.

That is not an answer, and there is no evidence that MAD prevented any nuclear war. In fact, there are examples of nuclear states (at least presumed nuclear states at the time) being attacked despite the fact they allegedly possessed nuclear weapons.

Add to that, our missile shield would be incapable of intercepting a large number of missiles anyway, the presence of a missile shield would not upset the balance of MAD, if you bought into it.

The current GMD system we have would be overwhelmed by even a limited North Korean attack (assuming they had the capability etc etc to even get a missile here with a working nuclear warhead etc). The concept of 1 interceptor being able to eliminate one missile is a false assumption, and not backed by any tangible evidence either.

I actually wrote my Master's thesis on the missile defense issue, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there it seems on how it actually works.

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I see. So, selling arms to Iran was justified, because the Congress of the US was wrong in not supporting a war in Central America.

When Congress is wrong, it is OK for the executive branch to raise money however they can to correct that wrong, even if it means selling arms to the enemy.

Now that your position on that is clear, we know how you would feel about Obama selling arms to Iran: It would be OK so long as it is to correct a wrong decision made by Congress.

Interesting philosophy.

Anyone who isn't a moron would understand CLEARLY the consequences of allowing south and central america to turn into a marxist continent. Also, you're lying about iran being an enemy in the 1980s - we weren't fight a war with them.

Lie, distort, tell half truths - the familiar leftwing stock in trade.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Anyone who isn't a moron would understand CLEARLY the consequences of allowing south and central america to turn into a marxist continent. Also, you're lying about iran being an enemy in the 1980s - we weren't fight a war with them.

Lie, distort, tell half truths - the familiar leftwing stock in trade.

Thank you for confirming what I said about your philosophy. I see you CLEARLY understand the consequences of failing to go against the will of the Congress in that instance, so, IYO, selling arms to Iran and using the money to support the guerillas was perfectly fine. However, you are wrong about Iran. We weren't in a shooting war with them, and aren't now, but they were a long way from being a friendly nation under Ayatolla Khomeni.

Once again, under what circumstances would you support the current administration selling arms to Iran?

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Thank you for confirming what I said about your philosophy. I see you CLEARLY understand the consequences of failing to go against the will of the Congress in that instance, so, IYO, selling arms to Iran and using the money to support the guerillas was perfectly fine.

As I said, an act of desperation to save a continent from marxist slavery, at a time when the democrat congress, always in love with south american marxist killers who sport cool uniforms and beards, was going to do nothing.

We weren't in a shooting war with them

Ah - you admit you are a liar - progress.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Don't overlook the fact that an adversary thinking a system will work (even if there is no chance it will, which is not entirely true in the SDI case) is almost as effective as the system actually working.



Yes, it is true that the Patriot batteries deployed in the Gulf often hit the missile and not the warhead, but remember, that is how they were designed at the time.

And also remember, Patriot batteries deployed in the Gulf are just an area missile defense, it would still be effective eliminating a missile (even if only knocking the warhead off track) in its midcourse phase (assuming Brilliant Pebbles ever really went anywhere), thus protecting the homeland.

Remember, no one thought a nuclear war with Russia would take place only in Europe (or the Gulf etc), it would take place in Russia and the US.



MAD is an outdated theory in my opinion that was never backed with any tangible evidence...

The argument (boiled down for simplicity) goes likes this:
Question: Why did MAD work?
Answer: We did not have a nuclear war.

That is not an answer, and there is no evidence that MAD prevented any nuclear war. In fact, there are examples of nuclear states (at least presumed nuclear states at the time) being attacked despite the fact they allegedly possessed nuclear weapons.

Add to that, our missile shield would be incapable of intercepting a large number of missiles anyway, the presence of a missile shield would not upset the balance of MAD, if you bought into it.

The current GMD system we have would be overwhelmed by even a limited North Korean attack (assuming they had the capability etc etc to even get a missile here with a working nuclear warhead etc). The concept of 1 interceptor being able to eliminate one missile is a false assumption, and not backed by any tangible evidence either.

I actually wrote my Master's thesis on the missile defense issue, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there it seems on how it actually works.

I don't think you can ever prove MAD works...its just a logical idea that a Rational leader...will not want to do something that leaves him and evryone in his nation dead...or worse...of course with say North Korea where the man is Insane...this works less...also in the hands of a religion nut who thinks they are the voice of God or something...but the USSR was basicly sane so MAD worked...

aslo the Star wars System Regan talked about ...was a system to take out massive amounts of missiles from a major USSR attack..not a small strike by say North Korea ( who can't hit us yet...yet..) or Iran....who also can't hit us. A system that can do the job of these threats..I believe is possible with today's tech...but back in the 80s..even this limited idea would not have been possible.

Of course as each system starts small...logic says it will grow..and others will form..and they will grow...and at some point will reach the leval I was talking about...unless there is some major arms treaty to prevent it...and depending how far ahead, much farther then this...have you read the next 100 years, by George Friedman of Stratfor...we will be at a system far beyond Regan's...by 2050..but then again the missiles will be going at speeds far beyond what we use today with small exceptions.

The ability to make a better missile to defend a defense.. has always, and will always be ahead of the ability to hit them I believe. While of course any book predicting world changes in tech and political power is bound to seem far fetched, and be wrong alot...its backed up pretty well by what logic and the fact that as much as we think there are always so many options...there often is very few real options. His idea of how the 3rd world war starts...pretty far fetched..then again in 1900 if you predicted much of WWII you would have said the same.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Thank you for confirming what I said about your philosophy. I see you CLEARLY understand the consequences of failing to go against the will of the Congress in that instance, so, IYO, selling arms to Iran and using the money to support the guerillas was perfectly fine. However, you are wrong about Iran. We weren't in a shooting war with them, and aren't now, but they were a long way from being a friendly nation under Ayatolla Khomeni.

Once again, under what circumstances would you support the current administration selling arms to Iran?

yea its not like we where at war with Iran..they where just holding hostages of ours...and funding and supporting Hezbollah...that whole takeover our Embassy and holding hostages for months ...that was soo over with, we where really..lovers It think...the US and Iran really I thought where going to make it and tie the knot. lol


So yes it was a smart idea to trade arms for hostages...to a friend while supporting a war in SA waged by a army committing major atrocities. But killing lots of innocents if fine.so long as its for capitalism...even if the people don't want it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

As I said, an act of desperation to save a continent from marxist slavery, at a time when the democrat congress, always in love with south american marxist killers who sport cool uniforms and beards, was going to do nothing.




Ah - you admit you are a liar - progress.

we are not in a shooting war with North Korea..should Obama sell them arms then?

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

we are not in a shooting war with North Korea..should Obama sell them arms then?

Get yourself a logic 101 textbook, start on page one, and read all the way through - slowly.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Get yourself a logic 101 textbook, start on page one, and read all the way through - slowly.

its sad when someone can hold such strong views...and be so completely unaware of what they are saying...and what views they actually are supporting...and when pointed out...they are so able to bury there head in the sand and pretend they did not say it...

but I think its safe to say...you have lost...sorry...I would say please try again...but really if you did not , no big loss.

You just keep on that, Iran was not our Enemy line...That always will win you support

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

its sad when someone can hold such strong views...and be so completely unaware of what they are saying...and what views they actually are supporting...and when pointed out...they are so able to bury there head in the sand and pretend they did not say it...

but I think its safe to say...you have lost...sorry...I would say please try again...but really if you did not , no big loss.

You just keep on that, Iran was not our Enemy line...That always will win you support

You are UTTERLY confused - are you on drugs, legal or otherwise?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

As I said, an act of desperation to save a continent from marxist slavery, at a time when the democrat congress, always in love with south american marxist killers who sport cool uniforms and beards, was going to do nothing.

I must say, your view of history is consistent. It is rather strange, but consistent. Do you believe in the mutability of the past?

Ah - you admit you are a liar - progress.

Hardly. Unless you're willing to say that Iran was an ally when we sold them arms, your argument doesn't hold water at all. Further, when you begin to make personal insults, you have already conceded the debate.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I don't think you can ever prove MAD works...its just a logical idea that a Rational leader...will not want to do something that leaves him and evryone in his nation dead...or worse...of course with say North Korea where the man is Insane...this works less...also in the hands of a religion nut who thinks they are the voice of God or something...but the USSR was basicly sane so MAD worked...

Forgive me if I am not willing to place national security in the hands of an untested, unproven theory.

aslo the Star wars System Regan talked about ...was a system to take out massive amounts of missiles from a major USSR attack..not a small strike by say North Korea ( who can't hit us yet...yet..) or Iran....who also can't hit us. A system that can do the job of these threats..I believe is possible with today's tech...but back in the 80s..even this limited idea would not have been possible.

First of all, North Korea and Iran can hit Americans right now... and they certainly can strike at our interests. They don't have to have a missile capable of hitting LA to "hit us". We have thousands of troops in South Korea, and all over the Middle East, well within their capability.

And yes, the theory of Star Wars was what you argue in the beginning, but it quickly morphed away from that into a more limited defense structure.

Of course as each system starts small...logic says it will grow..and others will form..and they will grow...and at some point will reach the leval I was talking about...unless there is some major arms treaty to prevent it...and depending how far ahead, much farther then this...have you read the next 100 years, by George Friedman of Stratfor...we will be at a system far beyond Regan's...by 2050..but then again the missiles will be going at speeds far beyond what we use today with small exceptions.

I agree that our enemies will seek to develop counter measures to any shield we deploy, but that does not mean it will be easy for them, or that our system would not work, or that we could not modify it either.

The ability to make a better missile to defend a defense.. has always, and will always be ahead of the ability to hit them I believe.

I think there are a lot more factors that go into a statement like this to actually make it true.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Forgive me if I am not willing to place national security in the hands of an untested, unproven theory.



First of all, North Korea and Iran can hit Americans right now... and they certainly can strike at our interests. They don't have to have a missile capable of hitting LA to "hit us". We have thousands of troops in South Korea, and all over the Middle East, well within their capability.

And yes, the theory of Star Wars was what you argue in the beginning, but it quickly morphed away from that into a more limited defense structure.



I agree that our enemies will seek to develop counter measures to any shield we deploy, but that does not mean it will be easy for them, or that our system would not work, or that we could not modify it either.



I think there are a lot more factors that go into a statement like this to actually make it true.

I think overall, just defensive things always lag behind offensive for the most part..no matter how good the armor on a tank gets...the guns normally get more powerful faster to get threw it ..sure sometimes for short times the defense may get a head, but its short lived...Same with body armor...make better body armor..make better bullet...and normally the bullets are ahead of the game.

as for testing MAD...how would one test it? The only test i can think of that holds true..is the real world test....that says as so far..nearly 50 years since at least 2 nations have had nuclear weapons...none have ever used them on anyone..let alone a nation also holding nuclear power..Its a pretty hard think to test , to see if a leader would really make the choice to have there whole nation whipped off the face of the earth, including themselves...just to nuke someone else first.

I would love to see no need for MAD to be tested, and have no nuclear weapons on earth...but like many things...you can't un-invent them

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

We know that the US and the Soviet Union had a standoff appropriately dubbed "MAD" for many years, and that there was no nuclear war during that time.

What we don't know is whether there was no nuclear war because of MAD. It's that correlation vs causation thing again.

Given human nature, we are left wondering whether a world with one nuclear super power would have survived, and what it might have looked like. Personally, I think the world we have is a lot better, but who knows?