Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History  
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Today the US President said that Sarah Palin is a rube regarding nuclear policy and he is right. Why more US progressives don't taunt these "conservatives" that have no education, no experience, and hypocrisy flowing forth, with facts and history is beyond me. Obama also got in a nice jab on how dysfunctional the US Senate is with Republican obstructionism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zSBtx76B8


I mean seriously, who can take anyone who likens America's nuclear policy being akin to "schoolyard bullies"? More importantly however, this new treaty is a great achievement. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. pushed hard on nukes being eliminated. Obama is continuing this policy of eliminating nukes and is signing a treaty no different than anything Reagan / Bush Sr. wouldn't have been proud of signing and passing.

There is no difference whatsoever today post signing than there was under Reagan/Bush Sr. in their efforts to cutting the nuclear stockpiles that the USA / Russia have pointed at each other and in each other's armories. Holding on to these disgusting weapons costs tens of billions of $$$ for both countries, as well as leaves "loose nukes" out there for terrorist groups to gain control of. The USA, Russia, and the rest of the world can rest just a little bit easier as we eliminate these deadly and dangerous weapons. Regardless of your political affiliation you cannot deny this is a welcomed step forward in ridding the world of these awful nightmarish weapons.

Or as Reagan said it best perhaps: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

[Edited 2010-04-09 01:47:33]

143 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4200 times:

Hardly a surprise; Sarah Palin is on the wrong side of almost everything!

User currently offlineoa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26860 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4180 times:

Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.

User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4154 times:

Looks like Japan is quite in favor of this new treaty. (No surprise really as everyone here in Asia for the most part is happy with less death dealing nukes.)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/09/c_13243825.htm



Quoting oa260 (Reply 2):
Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.

She's an expert on Russian relations since she can "see Russia from her house". LOL!

Gotta love her "expertise" in the "end all and be all of nuclear weaponry" of rambling nonsense when she was asked about it in the debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PIzfXrQk-Y

And who can forget her "duh...... I don't know" response when being asked about the Bush doctrine and nuclear weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDdPnKjFhpA&feature=related

[Edited 2010-04-09 02:23:42]

User currently offlineFlybaurLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting oa260 (Reply 2):
Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.

But what you're suggesting is that she has an actual useful skill!



Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlinetk747 From Australia, joined Sep 2009, 339 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4077 times:

My god this woman really is a moron.

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):
No surprise really as everyone here in Asia for the most part is happy with less death dealing nukes

The thing is, even with this arms reduction, the US and Russia still have more than enough nukes (about 1,500 each IIRC) to obliterate us all. So while I do think it's a good step, it's nowhere close to making either country free of nuclear arms. So it will also not make the US "weaker" or anything like that.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3983 times:

Actually the OP forgot to quote the best response Obama had for Palin: "If the charmain of the Joint Chiefs is OK with it, then I'm going to take advice from him over Sarah Palin".

Once again, her handlers seem to be a complete PR train wreck - it never fails.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):

I mean seriously, who can take anyone who likens America's nuclear policy being akin to "schoolyard bullies"? More importantly however, this new treaty is a great achievement.

First of all, the policy Palin was criticizing has nothing to do with the treaty. As far as I know, she has not said anything about the treaty (Although I hardly follow her every word).

Her criticism was on the reversal of a policy that has been in place for half a century - that if anyone hits the US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems).

This policy has always been intended to intimidate those nations who might not be able to challenge us militarily, but feel that they might be able to get away with an attack and then hide behind their civilian population. This is more of a danger today than ever before. The policy told them that if you use a WMD on us, we will turn your cities into glass parking lots, and are not going to screw around with trying to find the specific persons responsible, surgical strikes and so forth. Anyone hitting us with WMDs will get WMDs right back.

By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together. Obama has now said that in response to a WMD attack, we are going to respond exactly in the same way as we responded to 9/11 - a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground. Or else we ask for a condemnation vote in the UN...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together.

Take it up with the SecDef then. Where was this kind of complaint when his predecessor was claiming we could kick ass all over the ME on the cheap?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems)

Are you suggesting we should?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground

Isnt that the way we were told by God to act?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

And we care about this woman because...?


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 11):
And we care about this woman because...?

Why do we care about John and Kate Gosslin? Why do care about Octo-mom? Why do we care about Bradgelina?

Entertainment.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do we care about John and Kate Gosslin?

Who?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do care about Octo-mom?

Huh? I ignored her the first day that was published.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do we care about Bradgelina?

I don't, why do you?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Entertainment.

Ahhh, well, this particular "entertainment" is stupid to me.

So, what else you got?



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3902 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 13):
Ahhh, well, this particular "entertainment" is stupid to me.

Yet we find you in this thread...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
Take it up with the SecDef then. Where was this kind of complaint when his predecessor was claiming we could kick ass all over the ME on the cheap?

Exactly the point. They know that we won't want to repeat that experience. If we were to do this all over again since 9/11, maybe it would have been a better idea to turn Kandahar or Kabul into a smoking crater, not bother with ground troops, and make a general announcement, "don't attack us again". (I'm not saying that's what we should have done - but that it might have been a preferable alternative to the 8 years of crap we've had to deal with.)

So they know we won't invade another ME country. Now they know we won't take the other extreme option either. What's left? All I can see is the half-assed measures that led to 9/11 in the first place, what GWB once called, "firing a $10 million missile to hit a camel in the ass".

Sorry, but this does not show that we have learned many lessons over the past decade.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems)

Are you suggesting we should?

Not necessarily. But the option should be on the table, and Obama has now unilaterally taken it off.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground

Isnt that the way we were told by God to act?

WTF does that have to do with anything. We live in the real world, and our government's policy should be to defend our citizens and our interests. All other considerations come second or less.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
Yet we find you in this thread...

True, but somebody has to attempt to stop the hate.  



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
WTF does that have to do with anything. We live in the real world, and our government's policy should be to defend our citizens and our interests. All other considerations come second or less.

Isn't that the policy of EVERY government? even the ones you don't like?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):
Isn't that the policy of EVERY government? even the ones you don't like?

Yes, and going out of our way, spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our soldiers' lives to invade a country on the other side of the globe, fighting with one hand tied behind us in order to minimize collateral damage among a foreign population was the calculation made 8 years ago. Was the calculation correct? Was it worth it? Using the benefit of hindsight, what other alternatives might have been more productive? Nuking the whole country? Harsher rules of engagement similar to post-WWII 1945 and 46, where if anyone took a shot at an allied soldier in Germany after the surrender, the troops would be pulled out, artillery called in and the town would be leveled. Not many people remember that, but it worked. What about a purely diplomatic effort?

The point is that we put an awful lot of emphasis on trying to minimize casualties among innocent civilians - more so than in any armed conflict in history. Did that prove to be counterproductive?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3857 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Or as Reagan said it best perhaps: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

My guess is he was urging the scientific community to work on the technology for The Star Wars space based defense. By the way, did you know, that under the new treaty, if the US decided to deploy a missile shield, the treaty would be void? Yet, Obama signed it.

Let see what The Senate says.

As for the our new policy:

What we have effectively told the world is: that you don't have to develop nuclear weapons to attack and hurt us. In fact, comply with the non-proliferation treaties, it will strengthen your hand. Go ahead and develop, deploy and employ chemical and/or biological weapons (which are probably a whole lot cheaper and easier to make, store and use). Our only response will be a conventional one. See, we don't stock chemical and biological weapons in any real usable quantity. Have a go at us.

Our threat to the use of any WMD against us has always been retaliation by a nuclear attack. You all remember the doctrine mutual assured destruction, right? It wasn't only a doctrine aimed at the Soviets, it was aimed against any nation that felt the need to threaten us with any WMD.

The elimination of nuclear weapons will not come because eberyone decides that they are big, bad, evil weapons that should never be employed, ever again. The way to rid the world of nuclear weapons is to develop technology that renders them useless. Even then, that technology will only work against the delivery systems. The warheads themselves will continue to exist. The technology will always be there and, as such, we will always be susceptible to a nuclear device. The genie is out of the bottle, and we will never be able to fully contain it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3847 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
What we have effectively told the world is: that you don't have to develop nuclear weapons to attack and hurt us.

I just don't see the logic in that kind of take on this when we have no intention of drawing down to a ready level of 500 or less warheads at any point in the next 30 years. That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):

My guess is he was urging the scientific community to work on the technology for The Star Wars space based defense. By the way, did you know, that under the new treaty, if the US decided to deploy a missile shield, the treaty would be void? Yet, Obama signed it.

I did not know that. I haven't had the time to follow the news very closely in the past week - my company is being acquired and I am neck deep in paperwork.

But that is a terrible development. Shall we sign a treaty that says our troops are no longer authorized to wear body armor? How about removal of armor from our tanks and other vehicles? How does removing purely defensive capability make us safer?

BTW, how much credit did anyone give GWB for unilaterally reducing the US stockpile of nuclear weapons by over 60% some years ago, basically embarrassing the Russians into agreeing to follow suit?

[Edited 2010-04-09 07:20:23]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5365 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
I just don't see the logic in that kind of take on this when we have no intention of drawing down to a ready level of 500 or less warheads at any point in the next 30 years. That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?

But, according to our new policy (not the treaty Obama just signed), our nuclear arsenal (whether 500 or 50,000 warheads) means nothing if you've complied with the non-proliferation treaty and have not attacked us with nuclear weapons. Have at us with chemical and biological weapons, we will not fire a nuclear weapon at you.

The draw-down treaty is a seperate issue, though the timing is interesting.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?

Three I suppose!!!!!    The objections are astonishing. A little more controversial, but so far never, ever, mentioned is how countries not in conformity with the Non P T will be assessed. A couple of interesting cases come to mind and they are at present liable to the full works. Interesting.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3823 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 23):
Three I suppose!!!!! The objections are astonishing.

I don't see many people objecting to the number of weapons. I don't see anyone needing more than a couple hundred (and most of those are simply for placement purposes, not for actual use). What people are complaining about is the no-use policy in response to a WMD attack.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 Post contains links fr8mech : The Russian government issued a statement yesterday reiterating its position that it reserved the right to withdraw from the START Treaty if there was
26 Dreadnought : Then my question is what is the threat to us if Russia does not sign the treaty, or drops out of it? I'm not worried too much about Russia. They have
27 Aaron747 : This is still completely illogical line of thought. Whatever the treaty says, you really expect our response will be in accordance with it? What's on
28 fr8mech : Then why make the statement? Why the policy change? Because, if he has no intention of following his new policy, he is lying to the world to make him
29 mt99 : Are really concerned about politicians lying? You see in the land of unicorns and rainbows...
30 Aaron747 : Read the second post in the response. Strategic policy changes are standard procedure for leveraging your position when confrontations are afoot - Ru
31 Post contains links MoltenRock : To clarify for people, Obama signed the start of the START II treaty with the Russian president yesterday. On the same day the Nuclear Posture Review
32 Post contains images BMI727 : I don't think so. I really do not think this makes any country safer from nuclear attack. Does anyone else think that if the US suffers a nuclear att
33 fr8mech : So let's say Iran or North Korea or any other state were to pop a nuke in Europe or Asia or in the US, you do not feel that a measured response to re
34 mt99 : "A rose colored world where everything is black and white"... is that a Sarah Palin Qoute?
35 NIKV69 : What makes Obama an expert in nuclear policy exactly?
36 Aaron747 : Daily briefings from the DoD, JCS, and various intelligence agencies. That would bring just about any reasonably intelligent person up to speed well
37 mt99 : Joints Chiefs vs Sarah Palin in Nuclear Policy? Who would you choose?
38 Post contains links Aaron747 : Case in point: this strategy has already pulled one marginalized rabbit out of the hutch: Miffed by Obama's move, North Korea accused his government o
39 Post contains images DXing : And this President is more of an expert on nuclear technology and weapons how? This treaty is different in that it limits delivery vehicles as well as
40 Slider : Don’t mischaracterize Reagan. He believed and pursued vigorously “peace through strength” and even though he sought to reduce nukes, it was onl
41 Post contains links DXing : No. As a matter of fact the SecDef is on record as saying we need to build a new technology warhead. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?lo
42 texan : The treaty actually allows for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from that part of the treaty if we are attacked by biological or chemical weapons, o
43 Post contains images flanker : He is an expert just like he is expert at throwing a baseball. A disgrace.
44 Dreadnought : GWB reduced it by 60%. Big deal. The amount of the stockpile is not really at issue here.
45 DocLightning : And why should we hit with a nuke when we have far better weapons? We have megatons upon megatons of conventional weaponry that don't leave a radioac
46 flanker : see..
47 DXing : Depending on the type of warhead used and its employment, it doesn't necessarily leave a radioactive mess behind.
48 Dreadnought : There is something to be said for the idea that people get the government they deserve, and should be held liable for the consequences. The people of
49 MoltenRock : Hence why it's of utmost importance to get these "loose nukes" destroyed and out of the reach of terrorist nuts. Boiling down the nuclear arsenal to
50 Kappel : 1,550 to be exact. Not a small amount by any means. As mentioned by Texan: The US still reserves it's right to reverse it's policy if and when it see
51 Post contains links Slider : http://article.nationalreview.com/43...ng-obama-style/charles-krauthammer I’m not usually a fan of Krauthammer, not at all typically, but the analog
52 Post contains links MoltenRock : As amusing side point, all of those "conservatives" that whine constantly about spending being the source of all evil have no problems whatsoever spen
53 Dreadnought : Which is one reason why GWB drew it down by 60%. Your point? We already have said (repeatedly) that the size of the stockpile is not at issue here.
54 fr8mech : Because, defense is an enumerated power to the government and healthcare (and a whole slew of other things) is not. Have we proven that anywhere else
55 futurepilot16 : Oh please. Palin's response shows just how much the republicans are a bunch of warmongers. She likens Obama to the kid on the playground who gets bul
56 MoltenRock : LOL! More like 2,478. Elections have consequences.
57 cws818 : I don't think so. "Peace through superior firepower" has the unfortunate tendency of making another country seek to trump such superior firepower - s
58 BMI727 : How much looser do they get between now and when they get destroyed? Either way, I don't think this makes us any safer, but if it makes people feel b
59 Slider : pwned, hehe... That's what I was going to say! Providing for the national defense is one of the truly enumerated and directed constitutionally permis
60 mt99 : So.. if this is "free" money.. why even add it up to the total budget deficit then?
61 seb146 : But, one just can't simply say "Afghanistan was a failure because look where we are now" because there was another war started that had absolutly not
62 DfwRevolution : I posted this in the Netanyahu thread, but I think I wrote it with the intention of posting it on this topic. Here it is again because I like to talk:
63 MoltenRock : You mean luddites, not humans. As I'm sure you're aware and have seen, it's just spontaneous justification for whatever behavior their party does. "B
64 cws818 : By what twist of the imagination did you arrive at that gem?
65 MoltenRock : Apparently he didn't get the Cliff Notes that when Republican's disarm it's noble, strong, courageous, and patriotic but when Democrats do the same t
66 BMI727 : I don't think that it is a particularly good idea no matter who does it. So simply having weapons makes one a warmonger? Sometimes that is what you m
67 Kappel : And it still is... the new policy specifically says that the administration holds it's right to change the policy when it sees fit. But he forgets th
68 BMI727 : Compared to what it could have been, that is nobody.
69 Kappel : In Vietnam alone, the number of total casualties is in the millions (estimates are anywhere from 1 to 6 million casualties). The Korean war caused at
70 Post contains images DXing : Well, that certainly answers the question! How substantive! I liked her response to him saying she doesn't have much nuclear weapons expertise. So wh
71 seb146 : But, as was pointed out to me by a right-winger during the Bush years, Obama has much more info and intel as president. He is privy to classifed docu
72 DXing : Which is why he ignored his SecDef?
73 incitatus : If you are right, then unfriendly nations like Iran and North Korea should be closing down their nuclear programs and replacing them with other kinds
74 BMI727 : The wars we did have were smaller and more importantly, half way around the world. Most of those people who died were not Americans or Russians, whic
75 cws818 : You cannot possibly be serious. You want an arms race? You can't think of any more productive uses of the tons of money an arms race would require.
76 Ken777 : Like not invading Iraq for WMD (or oil) and going after the terrorists instead? It's hard to hide the origin of a nuclear weapon - and it's hard for
77 Dreadnought : Stupid comments aside, do you have any suggestions? He's using something called sarcasm. I remember growing up with the near certainty that one day s
78 BMI727 : I am serious. Yeah. Not from where I am sitting. An arms race can be quite lucrative.
79 cws818 : I certainly hope so. Still, the opportunity cost is enormous.
80 wn700driver : Just a technicality that I haven't seen addressed. Nukes aren't uniform objects. Some are made to be heat intensive, others have larger blast radii,
81 BMI727 : I'm not being sarcastic. The Cold War worked out pretty well for us.
82 cws818 : That's true, it did. However, look at all the money we pumped into the Cold War - how many social and economic problems could we have solved with tha
83 BMI727 : Money well spent from where I'm sitting. Well, the economy more or less took care of itself back then. Military spending can help a lot. And a lot of
84 cws818 : You are avoiding my point. We know how much money we spent on the last arms race. We also know how many social and economic problems we face. Perhaps
85 BMI727 : And I'm speaking purely from my point of view, which is that an arms race will do me more good than any social program. Plus, having a bipolar stando
86 cws818 : And rightly so. That's possible, although I'm not sure we have a true multipolar system at the moment.
87 BMI727 : I wouldn't say that we have quite reached it, but we are closer than we have been for a long time. Either way, the prospect of a nuclear free world i
88 cws818 : Why? To me the prospect of a nuclear-armed world, with fissile material potentially spreading across porous borders is far, far more frightening.
89 Post contains links and images MoltenRock : You need to brush up on history that took place before way back in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
90 BMI727 : Because without nuclear weapons, war once again becomes a viable option. And that fear is what has kept the world safe post 1945 where we have crises
91 MoltenRock : No, try again. It's because coward American Congressional nit wits abdicated their war declaration powers to the President to fight wars that are not
92 Post contains images Baroque : Time has allowed this to become quite an interesting question. Against the object being oil, would be the lack of success in producing much after the
93 BMI727 : Recessions will always happen, but in general the Cold War period was a pretty good time for business and technology. ...and none of those wars appro
94 Post contains links Baroque : So you support the "big hole" theory of economics then? It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd conclusions, has been apt
95 BMI727 : Not necessarily, but I think that defense spending is the government money most likely to end up in my pocket.
96 Baroque : Or, in a big hole??
97 BMI727 : Well, if they bury it where I can dig it up sure. If it is buried elsewhere then I have a problem. But that is exactly what being a defense (or any o
98 Baroque : I know but the Friedman-ites seemed to forget that the description of this activity was in Keynes book.
99 Kappel : So those lives don't count? We're still talking about millions of casualties, directly linked to the cold war. Nothing nice about that IMHO. So... wh
100 BMI727 : Honestly, no they don't, or at least not as much. That is a really callous way of going about it, but this is a callous business we are talking about
101 Kappel : The way you put it, callous is an understatement. True. But we don't need an arms race for that.
102 cws818 : Neither one.
103 seb146 : The article you quoted was from December 2008 from what I could see. "October" AFAIK, is referring to the month before the election. In other words:
104 Post contains links DXing : In the article it says: which means that the party of "NO" (since it seems to be such a favorite term) in 2008 was the democrats. Today on "This Week
105 Derico : If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it changes everything. We are talking about a nuclear Iran (which thru terrorism attacked Argentina in 1991 and 199
106 Rara : From the viewpoint of the Vietnamese? Probably nukes in Manhattan and Moscow. Callous, I know.
107 Ken777 : Stupid wars aside, nukes are expensive to have. Lots of controls, personnel totally checked out & trained and paid good money to watch over them,
108 BMI727 : Living in a superpower nation did have its benefits. It didn't work out so well for the Vietnamese, but the truth (that is usually left unsaid) is be
109 Kappel : But the Vietnamese didn't threaten the US. The US had no business going to Vietnam. Millions of Vietnamese lives and over 58,000 US lives lost for no
110 Rara : Yeah, I know. Most people around the world realize this. It's also the reason why every once in a while, some morons chose to fly into your buildings
111 bjorn14 : Aaah...Sarah Palin NEVER said that, it was Tina Fey who said that while try to make fun of her. Get it right. As Commander-in-Chief of the ONLY full-
112 Post contains images Ken777 : It's important because it highlighted the ignorance of Palin's comment in the Gibson Interview. But did she understand any of it? Highly doubtful. Sh
113 seb146 : So the Dems said "no" so one thing that we really didn't need to spend money we didn't have instead of saying "no" just to be the opposition. If that
114 Post contains links ATTart : I like Jon Stewart's take on the Treaty, you need to watch the whole video. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty
115 Kappel : Yep, as most of the time... he nailed it....
116 AGM100 : No...the Dems say Yes .... then turn around and say no in order to win politcal points. Like Iraq ... it was all good until it started getting hard t
117 Post contains images Ken777 : People in both parties supported the President, believing he was telling the truth when he talked about WMDs in Iraq. Based on that unfortunate bit o
118 AGM100 : Frankly I dont care who said it ... Palin or Clinton or Stevie Wonder ... what she said is correct. Palin is nothing to me ... she is not elected or
119 Slider : My claims stands on its own merit and if you need any proof, go pick up ANY history book. Thousands of years of human history, of wars, of conflict,
120 cws818 : That comparison is particularly inapt and disingenuous. How many people can you kill with a club or a spear at one time? Civilization evolves.
121 A342 : And sometimes goes backwards...
122 bjorn14 : Agreed. When Einstein was told that by inventing the A-Bomb he had ended all wars he replied, "No, I have only made war more terrible."
123 Slider : Totally disagree. The number you can kill with a single weapon doesn’t make the argument disingenuous whatsoever. It only proves my point. The tool
124 Post contains links aa757first : We've certainly had wars since then, and will continue to do so, but we've never seen war on the scale of WWII. Don't you think that nuclear bombs ha
125 BMI727 : Exactly, having such terrible weapons and a bipolar system for many years has actually contributed to stability. Full scale war just isn't an option
126 seb146 : Why is that such a bad thing? Why is it so bad to go back to a day when the whole world was working together for peace with the United States leading
127 DXing : Then you are in agreement that this is a bad treaty and won't object when the Senate fails to ratify it? Because nukes are a last resort weapon. Cutt
128 cws818 : Not particularly dispositive since one could only kill one at a time.
129 DXing : Carthage was not a one on one situation. It didn't take a whole lot of Romans to completely wipe out the city.
130 cws818 : Did the Romans have WMD? No. Did the Romans have bombs? No. Did the Romans have weapons capable of incinerating large numbers of Carthaginians? No. D
131 Dreadnought : Did that prevent Romans (and plenty of others of the time) from slaughtering millions when it suited them? No.
132 Post contains links MoltenRock : Agreed. When you have the largest, undisputed, #1 position (in anything) you don't need to beat your chest about it and berate your neighbors / fello
133 Slider : LOL! Because someone else--whoops, Russia--can't keep track of all of theirs evidently!
134 MoltenRock : It's pretty easy to condemn another country for having "loose nukes" that are more than likely going to be used in the US. But guess what? Do you thi
135 AGM100 : Becasue ... it is contrary to human history and human nature. Its a choice we have ... are we good or are we "evil"? Simple question ... is the US a
136 MoltenRock : The US military is both good and evil as it's relative as is America both good and evil.
137 AGM100 : Can not be ... You really have too choose sides and stand in place eventualy. I do not want a military or a governemnt who is not soundly assured tha
138 Slider : I agree. There's so much confirmed chatter about missing nukes and nuclear material it's scary if contemplated. Would you also concur with the notion
139 MoltenRock : No you don't. That's the false choice you force upon yourself as I've found most westerners and christians to do. It's not one or the other, when in
140 Post contains images DXing : It also didn't stop the Romans from almost completely wiping out an entire cities population and taking into slavery the few that did survive. The ci
141 seb146 : If you are looking at this through the right-wing glasses, yes. But, I believe this administration is trying to get back to a post-Reagan world where
142 AGM100 : Yes it is both at the same time ... but that is not America . Do we have evil operators sometimes in America , yes ... does our system fix the issue
143 BMI727 : Which is the liberal course of action. Liberalism does not require that the military be any smaller, larger, or considered "evil", just used differen
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Friday's Stupid Thread - On What Side Of The Bed.. posted Fri Nov 24 2006 08:20:36 by UTA_flyinghigh
GTA San Andreas: Wrong Side Of The Tracks posted Sun Nov 7 2004 17:05:07 by PlaneMad
BBC Wrong On Democratic Support Of President Bush? posted Thu Jan 11 2007 17:44:16 by AerospaceFan
So What's On The Other Side Of The World To You? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 21:17:59 by RJ111
Colbert: Sarah Palin Is A Retard posted Wed Feb 10 2010 06:30:26 by Aaron747
Awkward! Chris Wallace And Sarah Palin posted Sat Feb 6 2010 13:19:46 by tbar220
Sarah Palin Gets A TV Contract... With Fox News posted Mon Jan 11 2010 13:28:26 by D L X
Insanity On The Streets Of Chisinau posted Mon Dec 14 2009 16:43:26 by N537FX
Sen. Snow Drops Common Sense In Favor Of "history" posted Tue Oct 13 2009 12:24:22 by DXing
Sarah Palin: Going Rogue (pic) posted Fri Oct 2 2009 08:22:56 by Fxramper