posted on June 28, 2001 10:18:06 PM
It shouldn't be surprising that Russia dusted off one of it's largest ICBM (missile) today for a firing. The missile is one of two in the Russian arsenal which could be converted to multi-warhead deployment. As you all know, Bush's rudimentary at best Missile Defense System would not be capable of defending against multi warhead weapons for decades, if it ever could.
You do, of course, recall that such multi weapons were banned by Start II, a treaty signed by poppy Bush. But Mr. Putin (of the good heart and soul) has proclaimed that Bush the baby's ABM system makes Salt II void and Russia need not abide by it any longer.
Gosh, do you think it's all by Republican design? They always thrive when there's someone to hate and weapons to build under massive government contracts.
Maybe a vote for Bush is a vote to return to the good old days of the fifties when schools were teaching children to cower under desks in the event of a nuclear attack. Talk about a faith based lesson in futility.
posted on June 28, 2001 10:45:25 PM
Like I have been saying since he was elected....Bush is an idiot. Unfortunately, the rest of the world knows it too and that could be our downfall. Cant hide such a public moron. Especially when he busts butt to thumb his nose at that same world.
posted on June 28, 2001 11:30:52 PM
One way or another, they're going to turn out a Defense Contractors' Full Employment Act. I'm just amazed that this is the route they chose.
It's been admitted by the perpetrators themselves that the original "Star Wars" incarnation of missile defense was a hoax; the fact that they're playing that card a second time and thinking it'll fly just shows the level of contempt in which they hold everybody.
And of course multiple warheads aren't the only way to foil an anti-missile system. Any system involving lasers, for example, is dead as soon as they figure out what's being lased, and paint their rockets the appropriate color (harmlessly reflecting the laser). It's hard to envision any system which wouldn't be subject to analogous countermeasures.
None of which even addresses the fact that the most effective delivery system consists of smuggling a warhead into the country hidden in a bale of marijuana, then driving it wherever you want.
-gaffan-
posted on June 29, 2001 12:22:47 AM
It's going to be a $328 billion dollar (initially, for 2002) scarecrow that won't scare anyone.
They even say that the plan is to try out everything that MIGHT work and throw out those that don't. Meantime the dollars will continue to flow down as into a bottomless pit.
With so many republicans believing that his selection is a fine thing, for finally they'll have their tax dollars spent on things they want them spent on, the only conclusion is that they're all dumb enough to buy into this and to think that it's necessary.
Today Rumsfeld made recommendations for domestic military base closures as a cost saving measure. With the monumental expenditures and overruns that this stupid defense system will need it's easy to see why they need to find more money. At least that part of the plan has a positive aspect in that if the absentee ballots of ALL military voters are screwed up it may give them a chance to come home again.
posted on June 29, 2001 04:23:08 AM
There is a great many reasons and purposes for these actions that is not being spoken in public.
One for example is that the ability to project their power depends on aircraft carrier groups and even a modest ballistic missle program will allow a small country to thumb their nose at an american carrier group off their coast because it is a multi billion dollar target with several thousand sailors.
They have no certain and effective defence against ballistic attack.
The existance of a carrier group right now - for example in the straights of Tiawan depends on the desire of the opposing force not to want to seriously piss off the american government and bring a strategic response.
Any technology developed will be quickly integrated into the Aegis system and applied to that navel problem.
posted on June 29, 2001 05:23:31 AM
Let's state some facts here. SALT II was never signed by Bush &/or Yeltsin, START II however was, and was ratified by Congress in 1996.
Fact: Both the US & Russia routinely perform test launches. http://mocc.vafb.af.mil/launchsched.asp shows about a dozen on the scedule for the US (Pay attention to only Minuteman III and Peacekeepers, the others are not ICBMs). So both the US & Russia routinely perform test launches. No surprise here.
Fact: From the above URL: Although capable of carrying eleven Mark 21 RVs, treaty limits mandated deploying the Peacekeeper with only ten RVs. Minuteman IIIs carry up to 3. So we also have the capability of multi-warhead systems. That's no surprise.
From April 2000: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/russia000414_startII.html [i] But despite Russia’s public warnings that it would pull out of all nuclear and conventional arms control agreements if the United States does not adhere to the treaty, it seems more likely that Russia would be willing to make some concessions.
One of the few pieces of negotiating leverage that Russia has would be their agreement to alter the ABM treaty — such as allowing limited “national” defense systems oriented at “rogue” states like North Korea that are developing missiles that could hit U.S. territory. [/i] No surprises here. Under the Clinton administration Russia foresaw the undoing of the ABM treaty for the exact same reasons as we see in the headlines today. No surprise here.
Facts: http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/abm-a.htm Note: the .ru is Russia. Also in January, 1999 President Bill Clinton wrote to Russian President Boris Yeltsin outlining his plans to develop and test a national missile defense system. Oh really? You mean this is not a Bush-developed system? Oh my!
In September 1999, plans of Clinton administration on treaty modification were clarified. President Clinton has decided to ask Russia to agree initially to relatively modest changes in the treaty. The first set of changes sought by the administration would permit the United States to place 100 interceptor missiles in Alaska, which is the Pentagon's latest plan for defending the country against, at a bare minimum, a few incoming warheads from a state such as North Korea, Iraq or Iran. In 1999?!? Wait a minute! I just heard words like these just a bit ago. You mean our former Democratic President & his staff began using this tactic 2 years ago? Well I'll be. Never would have guessed that reading threads on AW!
...on May 20, 1999, which states: "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)." The bill entered into force in July 1999. Hmmm...was Bush President in 1999? No, Clinton was.
So KRS, as I'm just not getting it, can you please show me the SUPRISE! that you address in your thread title? I anticipate your reply.
posted on June 29, 2001 06:07:09 AM
I told you, deuce, you're a company man. Clinton tried and abandoned the ABM systems carried forth from the Reagan Star wars program, as you well know.
Now, if you don't mind, argue against the article posted. I did not write it, and I should not be addressed as though I did as you have with "So KRS, as I'm just not getting it, can you please show me the SUPRISE! that you address in your thread title? I anticipate your reply
It should be obvious that the use of the word 'surprise' is that the quick test is not a surprise. So if that's the part that you don't get, well, as I've said before, some people just don't. I could care.
posted on June 29, 2001 06:26:50 AM
An initial 328 billion expenditure on a usleless system after a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut and now this administration can only come up with an initial 200 million for the fight against AIDs. What kind of sense does that make?
Clinton tried and abandoned the ABM systems carried forth from the Reagan Star wars program, as you well know.
No I don't know. I thought that Clinton did not abandon it, but rather left the decision to continue with the newly elected President.
hjw
An initial 328 billion expenditure on a usleless system after a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut and now this administration can only come up with an initial 200 million for the fight against AIDs. What kind of sense does that make?
This is a reach, I do admit, but picture yourself in Japan, mid-1940's. Do you not think that if they had the capability, knowing what happened in Nagasaki & Hiroshima, they would have stopped development, due to initial failures, of any type of system that could have thwarted the devastation, destruction, and loss of life as a result of the bombs the US dropped?
ICBMs in the US are in-ground, in silos, or on submarines, and of course nuclear weapons can be launched by aircraft. However, others use other systems as well, such as road and rail mobile, and testing has been done, with limited success on ships and trawlers. So it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that a rogue nation/faction could indeed attack US soil, or their forces outside the US.
If the US were to scrap the ABM plan, and for whatever reason, we were attacked by such a threat, what would the outcry be for having given up on a system that could have avoided such a disaster?
And as gravid mentioned, collateral findings based on this R&D will aid in other areas of defense. After all, the Aegis system he speaks of is a mini-ABM system. It uses radar to locate incoming conventional weaponry, then launches it's own to destroy the threat.
posted on June 29, 2001 07:17:36 AM
I't's not surprising now, I guess, to find republicans crediting Bill Clinton with ABM treaties as has been done above, but it somewhat surprising that even while doing that republicans forget that they themselves put considerable pressure on for Clinton not to continue negotiation of any possible treaty so that it could be left for the next administration:
What's worse is that once Clinton had announced that he would pass negotiations to the next administration, he was again attacked for that:
http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/natsec/cbrief16.html http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/yspace/articles/abm19.htm http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/ef/bushreaction.html
"As President, I intend to develop and deploy an effective missile defense system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations. Today's announcement that President Clinton will leave this unfinished business for the
next President underscores the fact that for seven years, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed to strengthen America's defenses".
Now this begins to sound like the age old question: "WHAT do women WANT?"
There's a little known problem that was faced by Clinton called successorship. During most of his administration there was a rather large problem of just who was the Russia to negotiate with. There was no Soviet Union, there were 21 separate Russian states. The legal difficulties of establishing a treaty at all under that condition was monumental. Now, though that question may still arise depending on the internal politics of Russia, it does appear that one set of negotiations might take place.
However, Russia may or may not first agree to any adjustment of previous treaties. They hold the ball, really, and because of that it's no surprise that little boy went there simpering, kissing up, with his hat in his hand. Unfortunately for the power of the U.S., a weak presentation only reads as a weak country. Jesse Helms knows that.
ed: Oh, treaties are one thing; systems are another thing. Clinton halted testing of the Boondoggle Weapon http://www.acronym.org.uk/44abm.htm after it's second failure, and the impossibility of maintaining current treaty status with russia. It's scheduled for it's third failure on July 7, I think.
If the US were to scrap the ABM plan, and for whatever reason, we were attacked by such a threat, what would the outcry be for having given up on a system that could have avoided such a disaster?
The key phrase here that I disagree with is,
"a system that could have avoided such a disaster." There is no evidence that this is the case. It's my opinion that such a system could cause such a disaster.
...they themselves put considerable pressure... is backed up by ...Some Republicans object to this...
How many is some? Two, forty? Are you sure this is considerable? There's no names nor specific quotes regarding this, so I cannot make an assessment based solely on this.
[i]There's a little known problem that was faced by Clinton called successorship. During most of his administration there was a rather large problem of just who was the Russia to negotiate with. There was no Soviet Union, there were 21 separate Russian states. The legal difficulties of establishing a treaty at all under that condition was monumental. Now, though that question may still arise depending on the internal politics of Russia, it does appear that one set of negotiations might take place.[i]
Depends on what you consider "most of his administration" as I remember either in 1995 or 1996 both Kzahakistan and Belarussia giving control of their ICBMs to Russia, closely followed by the Ukraine. Using basic math, those dates validate the argument that most is an appropriate word, but I would think 4 or 5 years would be plenty of time to negotiate.
However, Russia may or may not first agree to any adjustment of previous treaties. They hold the ball...
Disagree. They cannot sustain their current weapon systems, or even pay their soldiers! What makes one believe they could mount a credible, swift and decisive threat if ABM were to be initiated?
Regardless of who dotted the i and crosses the t, where was the uproar when the previous administration was formulating ABM stuff?
posted on June 29, 2001 08:25:33 AMWhat makes one believe they could mount a credible, swift and decisive threat if ABM were to be initiated?
Presumably there would be a tiny window -- about 5 to 15 years -- between the "initiation" of an ABM system and its actual deployment. Which means the ex-soviet missiles would pose a credible threat for quite some time before an ABM system would be online. It would seem to place them in a use-it or lose-its-usefulness situation. How smart is _that_?
And I realize it's difficult to let go of Clinton after eight years of ranting and railing against him, but I suspect the thread was intended to discuss the implications of what's happening currently. Otherwise, we can surely seek out first causes, and discuss the fact that the bind the US is in with respect to ABM system development falls squarely in the lap of that great Republican hero of the Fatherland, Nixon.
-gaffan-
posted on June 29, 2001 08:39:05 AM
Not difficult to let go, as I know my portfolio sky-rocketed during his tenure.
You'll notice the words "Bush is an idiot" in the 2nd post here. I assumed, since it was was placed in this thread, it had something to do with the ABM talk.
Just showing some balance, that this project, while it is getting so much news today, is hardly the brain-child of this administration, as I'm sure many posters here would argue they could not even think of such a concept, what with their "12-year old mentality".
posted on June 29, 2001 02:04:49 PM
No, you're post was to "some posters here", but it doesn't matter at all. You had already fallen to acting as though the one source of republican pressure is the only one with:
"How many is some? Two, forty? Are you sure this is considerable? There's no names nor specific quotes regarding this, so I cannot make an assessment based solely on this"
which belies you obvious inclusion of republicans in a larger cohesive group as you define them in:
[i}"My "they" was Republicans"[/i].
Maybe you can competently address this question:
Since the Russians, et al, {i]"cannot sustain their current weapon systems, or even pay their soldiers! What makes one believe they could mount a credible, swift and decisive threat if ABM were to be initiated?"[/i] as you said
why then would an ABM system with it's accompanying horrific expenditures of taxpayer monies be necessary at all?
posted on June 29, 2001 02:26:10 PM...I'm sure many posters here would argue they could not even think of such a concept, what with their "12-year old mentality".
Intent: I'm sure many posters here would argue that they (Republicans in DC) could not even think of such a concept (ABM), what with their (Republicans) "12-year old mentality".
That was my sarcastic thoughts as I typed them.
why then would an ABM system with it's accompanying horrific expenditures of taxpayer monies be necessary at all?
From one of my earlier posts in this thread: [i][b]
ICBMs in the US are in-ground, in silos, or on submarines, and of course nuclear weapons can be launched by aircraft. However, others use other systems as well, such as road and rail mobile, and testing has been done, with limited success on ships and trawlers. So it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that a rogue nation/faction could indeed attack US soil, or their forces outside the US.[/i][/b]
May not be the competence you're looking for, but it represents my opinion.
