Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

[SFC Ollie]

START was nothing more than another hurry up and pass this by a lame duck congress before they lose power. It is much too important to have been rushed through like this and should have waited for the new congress in 2 weeks. Just another political ploy for no good reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The new Republican Congress would have passed it, thus the current Republicans in Congress are merely grandstanding.

 

[Sallow]

Missile defense..doesn't work.

But makes the good people at Raytheon very very happy.

Obama shouldn't have bargained away missile defense.

That made him an idiot.

Missile defense was the best hope of ending the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The combustion engine once didn't work...manned flight didn't work...computers didn't work...microchips didn't work...right up until the day they did.

Should we have stopped working on any of them because they didn't work?

He didn't "bargin" it away. He stopped funding it when he came into office. This treaty had nothing to do with missile defense. And the best way to end of threat of nuclear annihilation is to get rid of nukes.

You can blow off 100 in your own country and destroy the biosphere. You don't even need to launch them.

 

[Missourian]

This isn't even anything to get worked up about. Obama cut funding for Missile defense. It doesn't work..it's expensive..and it's provocative.

How is finding a way to defend against incoming missles provocative?

Starts a new arms race. You think our adversaries would be sitting on their hands if we implemented a workable system?

We'd likely sell it to them, to keep the status quo.

 

[Sallow]

The new Republican Congress would have passed it, thus the current Republicans in Congress are merely grandstanding.

I dunno about that. There are some real nuts coming into the house..

 

[SFC Ollie]

The new Republican Congress would have passed it, thus the current Republicans in Congress are merely grandstanding.

And you know this , how? At least they would have been able to look at it closer and debate it fully.

 

[Sallow]

How is finding a way to defend against incoming missles provocative?

Starts a new arms race. You think our adversaries would be sitting on their hands if we implemented a workable system?

We'd likely sell it to them, to keep the status quo.

Anything that makes nuclear war "viable" is not something we, or anyone else, should toy with.

Seriously.

 

[Missourian]

Missile defense..doesn't work.

But makes the good people at Raytheon very very happy.

Obama shouldn't have bargained away missile defense.

That made him an idiot.

Missile defense was the best hope of ending the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The combustion engine once didn't work...manned flight didn't work...computers didn't work...microchips didn't work...right up until the day they did.

Should we have stopped working on any of them because they didn't work?

He didn't "bargin" it away. He stopped funding it when he came into office. This treaty had nothing to do with missile defense. And the best way to end of threat of nuclear annihilation is to get rid of nukes.

You can blow off 100 in your own country and destroy the biosphere. You don't even need to launch them.

Nuclear weapons aren't ever going away until they become useless.

The only way to end nuclear proliferation is to make nuclear weapons more trouble than they are worth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see, Ollie: every living president and secretary of state says we need this treaty now. A few far right GOP reactionaries in Congress and a few far right reactionaries here say we need more time to debate it. That was thinking in 1941 when the re-authorization of the draft passed by one frickin' vote in the House. If the bill had failed, our rearmament program would have gone in the toilet, and if you think the U.S. was in bad shape on December 8 later that year, imagine what would have happened if this defeatist thinking I am seeing here was making decisions back then.

 

[Missourian]

Starts a new arms race. You think our adversaries would be sitting on their hands if we implemented a workable system?

We'd likely sell it to them, to keep the status quo.

Anything that makes nuclear war "viable" is not something we, or anyone else, should toy with.

Seriously.

It's "viable" now.

And reducing the number of weapons makes it more viable.

Missile defense eliminates the threat.

 

[Sallow]

Obama shouldn't have bargained away missile defense.

That made him an idiot.

Missile defense was the best hope of ending the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The combustion engine once didn't work...manned flight didn't work...computers didn't work...microchips didn't work...right up until the day they did.

Should we have stopped working on any of them because they didn't work?

He didn't "bargin" it away. He stopped funding it when he came into office. This treaty had nothing to do with missile defense. And the best way to end of threat of nuclear annihilation is to get rid of nukes.

You can blow off 100 in your own country and destroy the biosphere. You don't even need to launch them.

Nuclear weapons aren't ever going away until they become useless.

The only way to end nuclear proliferation is to make nuclear weapons more trouble than they are worth.

They actually already are..part of the reason for this treaty is the help the Russians get a handle on their inventory so one doesn't fall into the hands of a terrorist (Which is a very real possibility because the economy in Russia is still catching up).

Nukes are a tough business...you just can't build them and leave them. They have to be maintained..and that isn't cheap.

It's part of the reason Libya gave up on them.

 

[Missourian]

He didn't "bargin" it away. He stopped funding it when he came into office. This treaty had nothing to do with missile defense. And the best way to end of threat of nuclear annihilation is to get rid of nukes.

You can blow off 100 in your own country and destroy the biosphere. You don't even need to launch them.

Nuclear weapons aren't ever going away until they become useless.

The only way to end nuclear proliferation is to make nuclear weapons more trouble than they are worth.

They actually already are..part of the reason for this treaty is the help the Russians get a handle on their inventory so one doesn't fall into the hands of a terrorist (Which is a very real possibility because the economy in Russia is still catching up).

Nukes are a tough business...you just can't build them and leave them. They have to be maintained..and that isn't cheap.

It's part of the reason Libya gave up on them.

North Korea and Iran belie that argument.

 

[Agit8r]

Seriously..what is this conservative love affair with nukes?

It's ridiculous.

 

[Revere]

There will be more nukes in the world by the time Obama is done than less.

Just not in American hands.

 

[Agit8r]

It is important when comparing with Reagan, that the Russians were our ***** because they were waging this ridiculous war against islamic zealots with nothing to lose in the Graveyard of Empires

Now the shoe is on the other foot... and then some

 

[SFC Ollie]

Let's see, Ollie: every living president and secretary of state says we need this treaty now. A few far right GOP reactionaries in Congress and a few far right reactionaries here say we need more time to debate it. That was thinking in 1941 when the re-authorization of the draft passed by one frickin' vote in the House. If the bill had failed, our rearmament program would have gone in the toilet, and if you think the U.S. was in bad shape on December 8 later that year, imagine what would have happened if this defeatist thinking I am seeing here was making decisions back then.

Nothing defeatist to it. You've got countries like North Korea and Iran playing with Nukes and you think it's OK to just push some treaty through in a lame Duck session? I believe we would have been better served if this had gotten all the attention it deserved.

 

[shintao]

This isn't even anything to get worked up about. Obama cut funding for Missile defense. It doesn't work..it's expensive..and it's provocative.

How is finding a way to defend against incoming missles provocative?

Don't you think we are paying to high a price to have a defense system to stop incoming?? If we cannot defend against terrorists at our airports due to costs, how can we defend spending billions to defend against a threat that has never happened?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you and R1 and the others know better than the all of the living presidents and secretaries of state saying that we need it now. So I won't argue more about this. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve day and I am excited about the Christmas Season each and every year. I will bid you good night.

 

[shintao]

So you and R1 and the others know better than the all of the living presidents and secretaries of state saying that we need it now. So I won't argue more about this. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve day and I am excited about the Christmas Season each and every year. I will bid you good night.

Merry Christmas Jake! May the balls hanging from your xmas tree be someone elses!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Merry Christmas Shintao!