Obama supports killing missile defense, slowing future combat systems...

jollie said:
Yeah, super, that he/she is ONE ANGRY DUDE! I pointed out some shortcomings and inconsistencies in Mr.OBAMA, and Liberalism in general, and "darla" started talking to another idiot named "ass head", or something(HA!), and started talking about my Dead Mother! Them the Liberals call Conservatives the "Hate-Mongers, and Nazis" They NEED to read that Brillian book, "The Liberal Fascism".
Click to expand...

LOL

Awww, Superfreak found a friend.
 
Darla said:
LOL

Awww, Superfreak found a friend.
Click to expand...

Can anyone find a thread where Darla shut up, and let someone else have the last word?

I think Damo should give another gift certificate to anyone who can find a thread where Darla SHUT THE FUCK UP, for once. Just for once. On and on and on and on and on blah blah balh blah blah . She wears people down on this site, because very few people can go on for weeks, over and over and over, blah blah blah, and they finally just walk away and she thinks she’s won something. But the only thing she’s won is the blabber mouth award.
 
Blackflag said:
I can't wait for Obama to beat gramps in the general.
Click to expand...

That'll happen the day you actually get a life, or contribute something of substance to this site. Either way I'm not holding my breath.

Now 3...2...1...

say something immature, and irrelevant.
 
Watermark said:
How would being a footsoldier grunt in a pointless war give you any more expertise in defense spending than the next guy?


I'm THANKFULL that Obama is going to cut this GOVERNMENT WASTE AND BLOAT.
Click to expand...

lol, first of all the context of your statement shows an extreme lack of understanding about all things Military. First of all, no one calls a Navy Pilot a 'grunt', secondly, it's not just the fact he actually wore the uniform, was tortured for it, but he's chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he's been involved in nearly every national security crisis this country has faced in the past 20 years, and his judgement has been shown time and time again to be correct.

Second last time the Democrats gutted our defense and Intelligence budgets, and built walls between the CIA and FBI 9/11 was a direct result. I just can't believe so soon you all are jumping off that cliff again.

Now compare that with these naive, jaw dropping statements. Slow future combat systems??? End Missile defense??? Only liberals think we can live in a world that if we naively disarm, the sky will open up to heaven, the light will shine down, and the world will live in peace.

All I can say is most of us know that is NAIVE and it will cost Obama the election, I can see the commercials now... McCain won't even have to say anything other than I approve this message...
 
Last edited:
Dungheap
Missile defense is a joke. How many billions have been thrown at that program? And what, you think the Chinese and Russians won't just develop missiles that can defy the missile defense system?
Click to expand...
Democrats have always said missile defense was pipe dream, and now with so many successful demonstrations of this technology, I've herd some real wild reasons for not having it, like earlier here, someone pulled the race card. The Russians don't even have the system, let alone a Missile that can penetrate it, it is a defensive network, and the worst that will happen is that they eventually will have the technology to build one as well, and that will do nothing but reduce the threat of these weapons. The fact is this is a defensive network, and not an offensive weapon.

And is it really necessary for the United States to develop first strike nuclear capacity? And won't that prompt the Chinese and Russians to develop a more effective second-strike by increasing the number of nukes at the ready? And how will India react to an increasingly nuclear-armed Chinese neighbor? Surely they'll start building more nukes? ANd what will Pakistan do in response to India's increased production of nukes?ANdhey, isn't this going to create a whole hell of a lot of fissile material floating about?
Click to expand...
US already has first strike capability, and I'd point to any latter 20th Century history book for your answer...

And should we really weaponize space? Surely the Chinese and Russians will sit idly by for that as well. No possible bad outcome there.
Click to expand...
The Chinese have already shot a satellite out of space, I assure you they are not sitting idly by.

Now that I think about it, you're right. Obama is crazy.
Click to expand...
Well statements like this are crazy, if you're serious about winning...

Oh, and why does it matter what we spend on defense relative to other items. Is there some proportion of our revenue or GDP that has to be spent on defense. I thought the idea was just to spend as much as is necessary, not to spend a pre-set amount regardless of the necessity of the expenditures.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last point, but I was just posting the numbers because certain Democrats where trying to say that sooooo much of what we spend is blown on our defense, if you can understand that, I myself can't either, so I just pointed out that proportional to other federal outlays, defense isn't the problem, in my opinion, it's one of the few justifiable federal programs.
 
Watermark said:
That was us WRL.
Click to expand...

We shot a satellite that was failing, and falling back toward Earth, and we got it in the outer atmosphere. The Chinese, a few months before that, shot one out of space.

China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.

Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability.


"If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html
Click to expand...

It's vital to US National Security, to protect our interests in 'space'
 
Epicurus said:
Watching this video hearing him talk about eliminating nuclear weapons made me 10x more likely to vote for him.

Thanks, WRL.
Click to expand...


That's great, every canidate talks about nuclear proliferation, that wasn't exactly the shocking part of the video.
 
We shot a satellite that was failing, and falling back toward Earth, and we got it in the outer atmosphere. The Chinese, a few months before that, shot one out of space.
//

Now if our enemies are just obliging enough to give us a year to figure tragectories and such out, our missle defense system will work fine. Or at least keep thier missles up there for a few orbits.
And shooting missles at us on cloudy days is not permitted either.
 
Willie - I'm not going to quote all of that up there but my response is as follows:

1) Whether a missile defense system works (it doesn't now) isn't really the issue. The issue is whether it is advisable. And while it is in theory a "defensive" system, surely it poses some offensive benefits, such as thwarting a retaliatory attack if the US strikes first, as indicated below.

2) We have first strike capacity. You are correct. But the missile defense system would give up first strike capacity with the ability to thwart any retaliatory strike. China and Russia aren't going to let that happen. You're basically starting a new arms race. And China and Russia aren't the only players. And increasing the amount of nuclear material when there is plenty that is insufficiently accounted for and guarded already is just the type of environment that makes a terrorist nuclear threat more likely.

As far as 20th century history, remove the multi-lateral and bi-lateral treaties relating to nuclear arms and tell me what you come up with. Bottom-line: diplomacy works, arms races don't.

3) I know the Chinese shot down a satellite, which is why we chose to do the same. Once again, diplomacy works. Begin negotiations with the Chinese and the Russian relating to such weaponry and weaponizing space. Why the arms race?

4) Defense spending accounts for over 50% of discretionary spending (and that is only the Pentagon budget) and we spend more than the rest of the world combined. Given that, surely there are cuts that can be made to the pentagon budget. I also fail to see how it is at all possible that each of the three branches need 33% of overall Pentagon spending. It's not possible that this stuff is necessary. At all.
 
WRL said:
I'll have to come back to this but Missile Defense is proving itself...


U.S. carries out successful Missile Defense Test

Missile Defense Test Yields Successful 'Hit to Kill' Intercept

Ballistic Missile Defense Test Successful


Missile Defense shield test aced as dummy target hit

U.S. military says THAAD missile defense system test successful

US Navy shoots down failing satellite on first try
Click to expand...


Being able to pass over-simplified tests some of the time is not really a system "proving itself," it's a system proving that it can work sometimes under highly scripted conditions that are nothing like real-world scenarios.
 
Remember the praises of the patriot missile system in operation desert storm. And the somewhat less than brilliant but more truthful results reported later ?
 
Dungheap said:
Willie - I'm not going to quote all of that up there but my response is as follows:
1) Whether a missile defense system works (it doesn't now) isn't really the issue. The issue is whether it is advisable. And while it is in theory a "defensive" system, surely it poses some offensive benefits, such as thwarting a retaliatory attack if the US strikes first, as indicated below.
Click to expand...
Any system designed to prevent an attack by taking out incoming missiles isn't an offensive system, I'm sorry that's just a weak argument...

2) We have first strike capacity. You are correct. But the missile defense system would give up first strike capacity with the ability to thwart any retaliatory strike. China and Russia aren't going to let that happen. You're basically starting a new arms race. And China and Russia aren't the only players. And increasing the amount of nuclear material when there is plenty that is insufficiently accounted for and guarded already is just the type of environment that makes a terrorist nuclear threat more likely.

As far as 20th century history, remove the multi-lateral and bi-lateral treaties relating to nuclear arms and tell me what you come up with. Bottom-line: diplomacy works, arms races don't.
Click to expand...
What, an arms race to build missile shields, that's probably a good thing, don't you think? Doesn't that defeat the logic for the MAD polices your last point alludes too?

3) I know the Chinese shot down a satellite, which is why we chose to do the same. Once again, diplomacy works. Begin negotiations with the Chinese and the Russian relating to such weaponry and weaponizing space. Why the arms race?
Click to expand...
I'm not against any treaties or agreement regarding space, but to cede our hand seems incredibly naive, to be polite.

4) Defense spending accounts for over 50% of discretionary spending (and that is only the Pentagon budget) and we spend more than the rest of the world combined. Given that, surely there are cuts that can be made to the pentagon budget. I also fail to see how it is at all possible that each of the three branches need 33% of overall Pentagon spending. It's not possible that this stuff is necessary. At all.
Click to expand...
That's a distorted number, as defense spending is only 20% of total federal spending. Discretionary spending is only part of the federal budget and not the complete federal spending picture, the largest part of the budget, mandatory spending isn't even included in that figure, it's a real dishonest tactic really, a way to distort the actual percentage spent on defense.
Click to expand...

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top