[ARCHIVED THREAD] - START JUST PASSED... (Page 1 of 2)
|
Quoted: Quoted: How does Amb. John Bolton feel about this? He says it's a big mistake and doesn't like it at all. Last interview I saw with him he was hoping they would wait till the next session. Says there is a lot of fucked up shit in this and it will neuter us.  We get to rely on Russia to be honest for a change |
|
For one thing - the START treaty basically requires us to completely STOP the development of our Anti-Missile Defense systems! Immediately after a missile DID NOT launch off the coast of LA, at which point Obama jumped on the first flight to Moscow to talk about a treaty... BOHICA. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does Amb. John Bolton feel about this? He says it's a big mistake and doesn't like it at all. Last interview I saw with him he was hoping they would wait till the next session. Says there is a lot of fucked up shit in this and it will neuter us. We get to rely on Russia to be honest for a change Russia and honesty are as incompatible as lighting a cigarette with napalm. Oh wait, Obama smokes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does Amb. John Bolton feel about this? He says it's a big mistake and doesn't like it at all. Last interview I saw with him he was hoping they would wait till the next session. Says there is a lot of fucked up shit in this and it will neuter us. i'd say that's what they had intended
|
|
Quoted:
For one thing - the START treaty basically requires us to completely STOP the development of our Anti-Missile Defense systems! Immediately after a missile DID NOT launch off the coast of LA, at which point Obama jumped on the first flight to Moscow to talk about a treaty... BOHICA. I did a quick scan of the treaty a few days ago, and didn't see anything limiting our missile shields in there, but if this is true, I have a very big problem with this treaty. Could you please show me where the treaty places restrictions on our Anit-Missile Defense systems? Other than that part, everything I read seemed reasonable, providing the Russians keep up their end of the bargain. Let's be realistic, is there any country we couldn't completely defeat with 1500 nukes, especially when combined with our world leading conventional forces? |
|
Was on Fox News this morning. Sorry, don't have a link - saw it on TV before heading to work today. Depending which revision was passed - it either halted development altogether, or it just made us concede installing a version in eastern Europe. There were two versions - not sure which one passed. |
|
Quoted: i think it was more so that obama wanted a START treaty in his name no matter what. hurting us was just a plus to him.Quoted: Quoted: How does Amb. John Bolton feel about this? He says it's a big mistake and doesn't like it at all. Last interview I saw with him he was hoping they would wait till the next session. Says there is a lot of fucked up shit in this and it will neuter us. i'd say that's what they had intended |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The accord, which still must be approved by Russia, would restart onsite weapons inspections
Like that would ever happen. Then the treaty is void. So the 'tards get their 'treaty' and attempt at world peace, and we don't have to abide by it because russia says FO. Seems like a win for everyone. (if it happens) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing - the START treaty basically requires us to completely STOP the development of our Anti-Missile Defense systems! Immediately after a missile DID NOT launch off the coast of LA, at which point Obama jumped on the first flight to Moscow to talk about a treaty... BOHICA. I did a quick scan of the treaty a few days ago, and didn't see anything limiting our missile shields in there, but if this is true, I have a very big problem with this treaty. Could you please show me where the treaty places restrictions on our Anit-Missile Defense systems? Other than that part, everything I read seemed reasonable, providing the Russians keep up their end of the bargain. Let's be realistic, is there any country we couldn't completely defeat with 1500 nukes, especially when combined with our world leading conventional forces? I'm not up to speed on this treaty but from what I understand it puts a cap to the number of ballistic missiles and launchers that a country may possess. As I understand missle defense is that we shoot incoming missiles with out own outbound ballistic missiles. If we are required to keep our ballistic missiles under a certain # than we'll either be able to shoot down all of Russia's missles and not hit them with any or we can hit them with all of ours and not shoot down any of theirs. I'm hoping someone who understands start can confirm my belief. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The accord, which still must be approved by Russia, would restart onsite weapons inspections
Like that would ever happen. Then the treaty is void. So the 'tards get their 'treaty' and attempt at world peace, and we don't have to abide by it because russia says FO. Seems like a win for everyone. (if it happens) The whole treaty is based on inspections. |
|
the pdf of whichever version this is. the missile defense part is... not very specific at all. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing - the START treaty basically requires us to completely STOP the development of our Anti-Missile Defense systems! Immediately after a missile DID NOT launch off the coast of LA, at which point Obama jumped on the first flight to Moscow to talk about a treaty... BOHICA. I did a quick scan of the treaty a few days ago, and didn't see anything limiting our missile shields in there, but if this is true, I have a very big problem with this treaty. Could you please show me where the treaty places restrictions on our Anit-Missile Defense systems? Other than that part, everything I read seemed reasonable, providing the Russians keep up their end of the bargain. Let's be realistic, is there any country we couldn't completely defeat with 1500 nukes, especially when combined with our world leading conventional forces? I'm not up to speed on this treaty but from what I understand it puts a cap to the number of ballistic missiles and launchers that a country may possess. As I understand missle defense is that we shoot incoming missiles with out own outbound ballistic missiles. If we are required to keep our ballistic missiles under a certain # than we'll either be able to shoot down all of Russia's missles and not hit them with any or we can hit them with all of ours and not shoot down any of theirs. I'm hoping someone who understands start can confirm my belief. If that's how we do it, I suppose this could have an impact. One would think, however, that using ICBM's as our defense system would not be very cost effective (as the interceptor missile doesn't need anywhere near the same range/payload capacity that the missile it's intercepting would). It seems to me that the easiest way to shoot down an ICBM would be with something more akin to a cruise missile (which should be cheaper and easier to deploy as well). Does anyone else have some good info on how our Anti-Missile defense systems work (while maintaining OPSEC, of course) and how such systems will be affected by this treaty? ETA: Just found the following from the text of the treaty: (a) A missile of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth shall not be considered to be a ballistic missile to which the provisions of this Treaty apply. Sounds to me like this treaty specifically exempts Anti-Missile Defense systems from being counted as ICBM's Also found this: 3. Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. Each Party further shall not convert and shall not use launchers of missile defense interceptors for placement of ICBMs and SLBMs therein. This provision shall not apply to ICBM launchers that were converted prior to signature of this Treaty for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. Looks like so long as the launchers for our Anti-Missile Defense systems are different from our ICBM launchers, or are not converted from ICBM launchers, it's all good. Sounds like we just need to "redesign" (ie: make the design different from our ICBM launchers in ANY way) the launchers so it is not the same as, or converted from existing ICBM launchers. The primary cause of this clause seems to be to prevent us from hiding nukes in our missile shields. |
| And once again our Republican senator, Lying Lisa Murkowski, voted along Democrat party lines. Which she has done so 100% in all her votes since the last election––I guess it's payback for all the Republican's up here that chose Joe Miller (R) during the general election, making her a write-in candidate. |
|
Quoted: And once again our Republican senator, Lying Lisa Murkowski, voted along Democrat party lines. Which she has done so 100% in all her votes since the last election––I guess it's payback for all the Republican's up here that chose Joe Miller (R) during the general election, making her a write-in candidate. keep a notebook record of everything for 2016  |
|
Quoted: For one thing - the START treaty basically requires us to completely STOP the development of our Anti-Missile Defense systems! Immediately after a missile DID NOT launch off the coast of LA, at which point Obama jumped on the first flight to Moscow to talk about a treaty... BOHICA. Insanity spreads! |
|
Quoted: FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu How much fucking shit are they goin to cram through the lame duck!!!!!!!  Everything they want. The dem supermajority the country elected in 2008 isn't gone until the new congress takes its seats. It's what happens when you don't support our party to the hilt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu How much fucking shit are they goin to cram through the lame duck!!!!!!! Everything they want. The dem supermajority the country elected in 2008 isn't gone until the new congress takes its seats. It's what happens when you don't support our party to the hilt. i don't always agree with you, but that last part is nothing but truth. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
This was is a huge mistake, this along with policy choices of the last 20years have ensured that in another 20 years we will be totally unable to build or support nuclear weapons. I agree that we need to work on replacing our existing systems with newer, more effective systems, but I don't see how this relates to the treaty. I agree that our leaders reluctance to develop new nuclear programs will have a negative effect on the security of this country, but don't blame this pretty good treaty (from what I've read assuming the Russians follow through) for the failings of our leaders in unrelated matters. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu How much fucking shit are they goin to cram through the lame duck!!!!!!! Everything they want. The dem supermajority the country elected in 2008 isn't gone until the new congress takes its seats. It's what happens when you don't support our party to the hilt. i don't always agree with you, but that last part is nothing but truth. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yup, people think they get to have their cake and eat it too. You don't get to bitch and moan and 'protest' republicans and also get the country run the way you want. If you don't support the GOP, the democrats WILL win and they WILL get what they want. |
