Abject Surrender In Dead Of Night

[Gilding the Lily]

Twisting words around to somehow show some logic doesnt really work. Its rather obvious actually.

I don't need to rely on your words; I can rely on your use of pictures (reposted a few posts above). Four months ago, you complained that Obama was trying talks with Iran first. You wanted the US to be more able to respond (or be proactice) to Iran's nuclear threats. Obama is now saying that he will put things in the works to do it. Now, in your last post, you cited this gem: "The Iranians keep saying no to offers of talks by saying they're willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment."

Funny that you mention that. In May (the same time of your other complaints), Obama told Netanyahu that "by the end of the year" he expected to judge whether diplomacy was succeeding. It now appears that Obama is stepping it up: "Israel is upgrading its Arrow missile interceptor, which is underwritten by Washington, and can also expect to avail itself of American Aegis anti-missile ships deployed in the Mediterranean." Then, when Obama noted that the US would develop sea and land-based interceptors against Iran's short and medium-range missile threat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei got pissed off. Mazel tov.

 

[dapoes]

Nice job Obama!

Russia Positions Warheads Near NATO Allies, Fueling U.S. Concern

The U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies as recently as this spring, U.S. officials say, adding to questions in Congress about Russian compliance with long-standing pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms-control treaty.

 

[Ms Tree]

Nice job Obama!

Does the US have any tactical nukes in Europe? And if so, why should Russia not be allowed to do the same?

Reminds me of the Cuban missile crisis. We had missile in Turkey and Russia had the audacity to want nukes in Cuba off our coast. By the way, we got rid of the nukes in Turkey shortly after the USSR removed theirs from Cuba. Coincidence? Yea right.

 

[dapoes]

Does the US have any tactical nukes in Europe? And if so, why should Russia not be allowed to do the same?

Reminds me of the Cuban missile crisis. We had missile in Turkey and Russia had the audacity to want nukes in Cuba off our coast. By the way, we got rid of the nukes in Turkey shortly after the USSR removed theirs from Cuba. Coincidence? Yea right.

Geez Garf, why am i not surprised...

Do you recall the russian-american nuclear arms deal that was heavily critisized this past spring? The reason being because it was a sham agreement that couldn't be verified? No verification of missle reduction, just take the russians word on it. This is after Obama feeds allies to bear

Still determined to "push the reset button with Rus sia," President Obama hit the delete key on our allies in Eastern Europe.

Obama's decision to abandon missile defense as we know it, cutting the throats of Poland and the Czech Republic, handed Moscow's hard-liners their biggest win since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian strongman Vladimir Putin insisted all along that we'd never be permitted to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in the former Soviet empire. He was right.

So after all that appeasement what does Russia do?

Russia Positions Warheads Near NATO Allies, Fueling U.S. Concern

The U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies as recently as this spring, U.S. officials say, adding to questions in Congress about Russian compliance with long-standing pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms-control treaty.

 

[Ms Tree]

Missile defense is a myth. Launch 10 hit 9 and the game is still over. The odds of hitting 9 is just about as likely as winning the lotto but whats a few nukes between friends right? The arsenals of both countries are large enough to eliminate all life several times over. I remember reading an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists quite a while back/ They were talking with several of the JCS and they were talking about how large the USSR arsenal was. Wen asked if they would be willing to trade, everyone of them said hell no.

We want to have tactical nukes in Europe and we want to have a missile defense system to protect them yet we get bent when Russia moves a few in? Read their history some time. I am not surprised by their actions.

The nukes on one boomer can screw up anyone's day and the Russians know it. To be worried about a few tactical nukes is a waste of time. I believe it is a distraction and a red herring. It's a good way to scare people. 'this missile defense system sill protect you... here duck under this desk to protect you from a nuclear blast'.

I'd be far more concerned about one of the thousands of nukes getting into the wrong hands and sailing into NYC harbor and going boom. SDI is not going to save your butt from that.

 

[dapoes]

Missile defense is a myth. Launch 10 hit 9 and the game is still over. The odds of hitting 9 is just about as likely as winning the lotto but whats a few nukes between friends right? The arsenals of both countries are large enough to eliminate all life several times over. I remember reading an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists quite a while back/ They were talking with several of the JCS and they were talking about how large the USSR arsenal was. Wen asked if they would be willing to trade, everyone of them said hell no.

We want to have tactical nukes in Europe and we want to have a missile defense system to protect them yet we get bent when Russia moves a few in? Read their history some time. I am not surprised by their actions.

The nukes on one boomer can screw up anyone's day and the Russians know it. To be worried about a few tactical nukes is a waste of time. I believe it is a distraction and a red herring. It's a good way to scare people. 'this missile defense system sill protect you... here duck under this desk to protect you from a nuclear blast'.

I'd be far more concerned about one of the thousands of nukes getting into the wrong hands and sailing into NYC harbor and going boom. SDI is not going to save your butt from that.

SDI? Your not paying attention again. Again you have shown an absolute ignorance on the issue being discussed, yet feel free to make some kind of disconnected, incoherent response.

 

[Ms Tree]

Strategic Defense Initiative was what started all this. It later turned into the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The various defense systems are based on what was developed under these programs.

 

[dapoes]

Strategic Defense Initiative was what started all this. It later turned into the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The various defense systems are based on what was developed under these programs.

Again you have shown an absolute ignorance on the issue being discussed, yet feel free to make some kind of disconnected, incoherent response.

 

[Ms Tree]

And yet you are incapable of explaining or substantiating your position.

 

[dapoes]

And yet you are incapable of explaining or substantiating your position.

Um if you bothered to pay attention, i was doing just that to great a extent.


Im sorry this is hard for you.

 

[Ms Tree]

Gen. Powell has come out in favor of the treaty.

 

[dapoes]

Gen. Powell has come out in favor of the treaty.

Im sure he would find it disturbing that the russians are VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THE TREATY in said article.

But im sure some will just dismiss it and "hold their nose over it" or say something inane like, "thats the way it is", oh well....look a unicorn!

 

[Ms Tree]

Former head of the JCS, a decorated 4 star general. If I had to guess I would probably say he knows and realizes that it is not worth scraping the treaty over.

Powell, a retired four-star Army general and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said he fully supports the treaty, and believes Obama has adequately addressed the concerns of Republicans lawmakers over verification and modernization of the remaining U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Failing to ratify the treaty, Powell said, could leave the U.S. in a vulnerable position.

full article

 

[delldude]

Former head of the JCS, a decorated 4 star general. If I had to guess I would probably say he knows and realizes that it is not worth scraping the treaty over.


full article

So sign off on the treaty and that leaves some 1550 warheads.....cool.

Ivan is getting controlling interest in uranium mines out west.....cool.

Suddenly N Korea and Iran have surprising centrifuge technology and delivery systems.....supplied by 'others'. Sign a treaty and sit by and let your stooges do your dirty work.......

 

[dapoes]

Former head of the JCS, a decorated 4 star general. If I had to guess I would probably say he knows and realizes that it is not worth scraping the treaty over.

full article

"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has bluntly warned that his country would build up its nuclear forces if the U.S. doesn't ratify the treaty. In an interview to be broadcast Wednesday on CNN, Putin said that START isn't ratified, "we'll have to react somehow," including deploying new nuclear technology. Putin said it would be "very dumb" for lawmakers to block the treaty?

Does no one else see this as a threat? Its a do as I say or suffer consequences statement. Obama had his chance to show strength but he blinked and submitted. He turned his back on our allies much to their abject horror.

In the meantime, there are NO U.S. personnel in Russia monitoring their nuke arsenal, not until ratification. None. They have depots from the Cold War era left unguarded. Then they move there arsenal closer to NATO allies? So, really, ask yourself: WHO is putting this country at risk?

The Russians have publicly stated that the treaty limits future U.S. missile defense options. The president denies that. But when two parties to a treaty disagree as to what it means … that’s not good. Beyond the Russian pronouncements, there is good reason to believe the treaty restricts our missile defense capabilities.

After the treaty signing, the White House issued a “fact sheet” declaring that it imposed no limits on missile defense. It then withdrew the fact sheet and issued a new one — one that now omitted that “fact.”

President Obama may not be troubled by additional barriers to building a comprehensive missile defense. After all, he has already cut the missile interceptor force for protecting the U.S. by 50%. However, future presidents who are serious about missile defense would be hamstrung by this treaty, which would be in effect for 10 years.

Obama played his trump card already. Disarm unilaterally, starting with destroying 50% of our arsenal. First he was no on ABM, now he is yes. After he threw the Ukraine and Poland under the bus, now he wants to extend a hand?