Another win for Obama
 

It looks like the President's effectiveness is building momentum. The US and Russia have agreed on the first major nuclear arms control agreement in 20 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032401535.html

Regards,

D-Ray

It'll be interesting to hear the GOP spin on this one - soft on defense, caving to the Russians, etc., as if the 1600 remaining nukes envisioned by this treaty ain't enough to guarantee security.

I am sure they will praise Mrs Clinton. ;)

Glasnost!!! Perestroika!!!

Oh, wait... :D

You're right: we could still turn Russia into ruin, if necessary.

I look forward to the spin... :rolleyes:

And vice versa.:(

I can't help but think that this is not an end itself, but the means to an end.

Wonder what the package deal is?

Chas

I think it is inextricably linked with the shit-canning of Star Wars in Poland and the Czech Republic. I believe I heard that there are tentative plans to sign the treaty in Prague in order to throw the Czechs a bone after the demise of the Star Wars bases there.

The treaty, tempest in teapot :) No one needs the amount of weapons we both have anyway.

And why would we walk away from missile defense?

Pete

Three reasons:

1. It's destabilizing. It upsets the MAD (mutual assured destruction) paradigm and makes other nuclear states nervous and more prone to increase and improve their arsenals.

2. It's extraordinarily expensive, hasn't been proven to work (except in a few "canned" tests between Vandenberg AFB and Kwajalein), and is very easy to trick with dummy multiple warheads.

3. A ground based system doesn't have the flexibility of an ship-based system that has advantages both in deployment and targeting missiles in their vulnerable launch phase.

The American public has been sold a bill of goods on the whole Star Wars thing. We've been working on it for 30 years and have spent countless billions and have not yet developed a reliable, foolproof system.

What's puzzling to me is that Star Wars has become an article of faith for the GOP, a party that is inherently skeptical about science and government competency. Star Wars is the most complex and expensive thing the government has ever attempted IMHO.

This may sound aluminum foil hattery, but here's my theory.

For the same reason we walk away from any, known, weapons system: there's something better that we DON'T know about...

Sea-based missile defense.

If the land based system doesn't work, how does the sea based system?

I believe MAD is dead, largely becasue the USSR is dead. Science and technology is our great asset - it scares the bad guys. (And it should!)

Pete

We get rid of ours, just in time for Iran, packy, and korea to take over the world.

Yea..

Love your new Avatar, will have a smile on my face for the rest of the day.

Chas

It's based on the proven and mobile Aegis missile system and goes after ICBM's in their vulnerable launch phase (while they still are attached to a fire-spewing easily sensed and tracked rockets). Once the warhead is in space, it's just another piece of space junk that we must accurately discriminate from all the other junk up there (including decoys).

As for MAD being dead, it happens to be the only proven deterrent to the first use of nuclear weapons. Even crazies like Ahmadinejad and Korea's Kim still have survival instincts and our remaining 1600 nukes should keep them nervous. Also the sea-based sytem can go to Korea, the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf while the ground based system is anchored in place.

Just a question for the budget conscious: does it cost more to maintain the missiles than it does to deactivate them, and, I would assume, dispose of them? Does the sea-based missile defense have a lower price tag than the land-based? Are we going to have some real savings in defense costs if this is ultimately approved?

Regards,

D-Ray

How dare you point out that Obama has accomplished something. Haven't you figured out that it's your patriotic duty to badmouth everything he does? Shame on you, Don! Shame!

Dave

And a hearty welcome back to you, sir. :) Those improvements you mentioned in Ohio are due to the efforts by the Republicans in congress, for sure.:rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

Finn I agree that we currently need MAD regarding the nuts in the ME.

But why on earth wouldn't we be developing a more sane deterrence?

And you guys, remember, China will not stay dorment much longer.

Pete

I'm not a big MAD guy, more of a tactical nuke aficionado.

I mean, if we destroy your nation to the point of there being nothing left for us to invade and pillage, what's the point?

We just need to destroy your strategic weapons areas and manufacturing centers, leaving the brothels and McDonald's intact...

Now that's realpolitik!

Could we save a Pizza Hut or two as well?

Pete

So long as they don't blow up the likker store.

Chas

:rolleyes: that would be serious

I like your posts.:D

Dave

One reason maybe is that the US is bankrupt and can just no longer afford to spend money on weapons systems that don't work.

And who was it supposed to stop? Iran is at least a decade away from a warhead, if they get sine outside help. Pakistan and India are too worried about blowing each other up to worry about nuking any other part of the world. Unless the "war on terror" continues to destabilize Pakistan and puts it into the hands of a radical Muslim leadership. North Korea needs their nukes as a shield against invasion by the US and S Korea.

Who else has nukes> Russia, of course, Israel has likely more than France and Britain, all of who are, ostensibly allies. Iraq was never close to having one, so that takes the middle east out of the equation. So who exactly was this built to deter?

The scary monsters that live within our paranoid delusions.

Dave

Which we actively recreate, every generation.

I'm sort of wondering who the NEXT bogeyman will be... :rolleyes:

We are actually past the bogeyman. We are now attacking emotions. The war on terror indeed.

It is called the Cobalt Bomb.:eek:

I think the use of tactical nukes (which have never been used, BTW), would simply be a first step to MAD. That's precisely the reason they've never been used in the first place.

As perverse as MAD is, it seems to have worked.

Heaven forbid we should build advanced defensive weapons for a certain future.

Pete

It's unclear to me how conservatives can support Star Wars. This is likely the most complex project ever attempted by government on this planet. It's akin to hitting a bullet with a bullet in outer space with only a few minutes warning. Remember, this is the same government that "can't do anything right."

But it is a military project, so that's different!

What weapons for what future?

This, like most things the military does,is fighting the last war over again.

It is theoretically simple. And certainly relatively easier than say landing on the moon - and taking back off - with 60s technology.

There is no fundamental difference between a ground to air missile taking down a plane.

Btw Finn, the largest engineering project in the history of Man is also the most ignored, the ISS :)

A rogue group getting their hands on a missile, or a country like North Korea blackmailing everyone, isn't the last war.

Pete

North Korean Blackmail only works when they don't use their nukes. As soon as the used one, they would be dead. And they know that.

How many missile bases should be built? We pretty nearly need to cover the entire world to make it feasible.

And again, America is broke! America can't afford to pay it's ongoing military commitments without borrowing every dime of it from China, let alone take on incredibly expensive new research projects for an enemy that might not exist.

And it is a damn site harder to shoot down a missile doing upwards of 15,000 mph then an airplane then an airplane going at less than a 1000.

Of course it's harder. Building a jet is harder than a prop driven plane.

And military spending a) drives technology (always has) and b) is a clear mandate given the Federal government by the people.

Pete

All fine, except for the fact that the country is broke and can no longer afford it.

It is also harder to build a transporter than a jet, but I don't see them wanting to spend billions of dollars on that right now.

Just look at the Federal Budget.

Google it now. I'll wait. Find a pie chart that includes everything- including SS Medicaid/Medicare...





Got it?

Okay. Can't cut the lines I mention above. You'll never get elected again. Unilaterally assured destruction. And we keep hearing we have no money. Now, say we cut *everything else to zero*. Of course you can't really do that, but for the sake of argument. Just keep Military, SS, Medicaid/Medicare.

What do you see? Ah. We have a problem. If we want to "cut spending" like I keep hearing, there's only one place left. Starting with huge projects that cost untold billions, have shown limited success and were designed for an enemy we, for the most part, no longer face seems a good idea to me.

As much as we talk about the money we spend on illegals, or welfare, none of it adds up to a hill of beans next to the big lines. It's not that the politicians don't hear people yelling "cut spending". It's that there is nothing to cut that will make any real difference that wouldn't be political suicide. No Tea Party will change that.

If we get Nuked, I don't think it'll come in over the North Poll. I think it will be in a Ryder truck. Probably get here in a freight container on a ship. And there will be nobody to shoot a missile back at. No MAD. Just us, dead.

Just thinking out loud.

Take care,


Ed

Makes sense to me.