Bush to quit ABM treaty

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Originally posted by speedracer:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it's a good move, especially in the light of recent events. And before any of you go on about how he's "breaking America's word" or whatever, I will tell you that there is a clause in the treaty that either side is allowed to pull out of the treaty as long as they give 6 months notice of the intention to do so.
 
Haven't decided what I think about this yet. From what I know of the issue, I can see both pros and cons. I'll have to educate myself more about it, I suppose.
 
Yes, you are correct in that Bush is abandoning the treaty, according to the clause, so, at least, he is doing that correct.

However, I question whether this is just another money sinkhole for technology that is decades away from reality. Let us remember the SDI in the 1980s, where hundreds of billions were wasted on a project that was later declared unfeasible. Are we also going to have the money to upgrade and maintain such a system?

Plus, do these "rogue nations" even have advanced enough missile systems that would require a missile shield? Even if we had a missile shield in place, it wouldn't have prevented September 11th, mind you.

I do fear that Bush himself is precipitating another Cold War, and he is clamoring for an enemy to target to justify billions in defense spending, which boost the income of his private defense contractor cronies. How better this money would be spent on our crumbling infrastructure, including our schools and our cities. Heck, with all the money we are spending on this shield likely, we could probably send everyone to college for free.

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
 
Terrorists aren't going to go to the extreme time and expense of acquiring a nuclear missle and launching it from some country - even Afganastan wouldn't be stupid enough to paint a target on itself by permitting a public launch.

If they get a hold of a nuclear weapon, they will almost definately deliver it by conventional means. A truck, ship or small private plane. I mean, think about it......why wouldn't you? Is there any reason to choose a much more complicated, expensive, hard-to-conceal and time-consuming method?

No.

There is absolutely no reason why a terrorist would use a missle. It's not like we can even detect a nuclear device when it enters our country.

By the beginning of this year, North Korea wanted to talk about scrapping its missle program completely. Talks had been proceeding under the Clinton administration and it came to a point where they realized it might be better just to give the program up and get some much needed food aid.

What did Bush do?

He refused to talk to North Korea about eliminating the very threat he is supposidly so afraid of and then turned around and proposed funneling billions into the Missle Denfense Sheild.

He couldn't let North Korea get rid of its missles, he would lose 99% of his justification for the system.

What a fucking idiot!

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-12-2001).]
 
Originally posted by Rono:
A agreement with the USA is worth nothing. So i am not surprised. Bush thinks that Russia will not protest a lot because the russians need help to keep they`re country alive. Money talks. And a missle defence system does not help against boxcutters anyway.
Click to expand...

Rono, there was an agreement when this thing was written back in 1972 that this wasn't necessarily a permanent thing. Both parties were given in writing the option to pull out of the treaty anytime in teh future. Bush is invoking that clause. How is that breaking any agreement?

Of course a missle defense system doesn't defend against box cutters. What kind of a statement. It is designed to work against missles.

Seriously, Rono, your statement that "an agreement with the USA means nothing" surprises me. I really thought you were above that kind of blanket, totally untrue, hysteric statement.



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 12-12-2001).]
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Of course a missle defense system doesn't defend against missles. What kind of a statement. It is designed to work against missles.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the "Bear Patrol" on the Simpsons...

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
 
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
This reminds me of the "Bear Patrol" on the Simpsons...
~melon
Click to expand...
Doh!!! I meant to write "boxcutters" the first time and will now chaneg it. Thanks for catching me, melon.
 
Well, I'm still immensely pissed off about the USA (or more specifically, BUSH) backing out of the Kyoto Protocol.

I think it was one of the most selfish, inconsiderate and long-term destructive acts any politician in the West has done recently.

Ant.
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Rono, there was an agreement when this thing was written back in 1972 that this wasn't necessarily a permanent thing. Both parties were given in writing the option to pull out of the treaty anytime in teh future. Bush is invoking that clause. How is that breaking any agreement?

Of course a missle defense system doesn't defend against box cutters. What kind of a statement. It is designed to work against missles.

Seriously, Rono, your statement that "an agreement with the USA means nothing" surprises me. I really thought you were above that kind of blanket, totally untrue, hysteric statement.

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 12-12-2001).]
Click to expand...

Having such a clause is for me a prove that you can make a agreement with the USA. But it is fun to see that the same politicans who where working with Bush sr. now finaly get what they want. I think that the usa politics are 15 years out of date.


And about the Boxcutters, i thought that Bush said, he wants that defence system to protect the country against terror states.

Well, i think it is a wrong move, especially in the light of recent events.
 
A agreement with the USA is worth nothing. So i am not surprised. Bush thinks that Russia will not protest a lot because the russians need help to keep they`re country alive. Money talks. And a missle defence system does not help against boxcutters anyway.
 
Originally posted by speedracer:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it's a bad move. Reading this thread there is apparently a clause in the treaty that allows a country to back out, so I won't challenge the legality of the move or US's untrustfulness. But it still is a bad move.
In my fears this will lead to another arms race, like there was before. Russia may have a crumbling military now, they may still try to find the need to develop ways to circumvent such a system. I believe there were talks last weekend between Powell and Poetin and again the point was made clear that Russia is against the installation of such a missile defense system. Another opponent is the EU, they also fear a new arms race is dooming should the US continue.

In light of recent events it also seems like a useless move. The USA isn't threatened by other countries who are planning to launch missiles. If there is a threat, it will be done with more conventional weapons or from the inside. And the shield is of no use to those threats.

I think this whole missile shield is for the glorious ego of Bush himself, to leave behind something to be remembered for. That's at least the impression I get when he bluntly cuts off any efforts for peace in some regions to advertise his missile shield. Yes, I'm refering to North-Korea.
I still don't understand it. There were talks between the two Koreas for the first time in many years, talks about improving the relationship. Appointments were made for further talks (you can never be too careful on the international diplomatic front), for opening the borders. As someone said, North-Korea wanted to hold/scrap its missile program. And then suddenly Bush calls North-Korea a rogue state and the whole situation goes back 40 years. Good move!
(BTW, as an aside question: are there still US troops in South-Korea? I really don't know if they're still there to protect the border)

OK, before I stray too far off, I will stop. I think I've made my point clear that I rather not see the ABM-Treaty being cancelled.

C ya!

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
 
Hell,

Well, Dubya has do it. http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/index.html
Bush announces U.S. withdrawal from ABM treaty

Hello arms race, hello tension in Asia, goodbye safe world.

frown.gif


Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
 
Let me pose a general question:

Do we want MAD (mutual assured destruction) to continue to be the doctrine that governs nuclear policy?

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-13-2001).]
 
My opinion can be summed up in the words of Michael Stipe:
"It's the end of the world as we know it"

Once again, the U.S. government is throwing money at a solution, when we should be throwing all this money at the real problem...poverty. Can you imagine how many allies we would have if we subsidized American farmers and sent their excess crops to Middle Eastereners and Africans, and even our own starving citizens?

Oh wait! That wouldn't make any money, would it? Oh, forget it. Let's throw those billions of dollars at a defense shielf and make ourselves more isolated from the rest of the world. At the same time, we'll be funding those independent defense contractors and saving our own asses. Forget about those impoverished, terrorist, who hate our guts. Forget about those losers...they're probably crazy anyway!
BLAH!
 
It's just Bush's very own prestige-project. He used it during the elections to get the moron-vote and now he sticks to it because he wants a second term.
 
Do we want MAD (mutual assured destruction) to continue to be the doctrine that governs nuclear policy?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it is the only doctrine that garuntees stupidity and hot-headedness doesn't lead to a nuclear exchange. Once people lose faith in MAD and believe they can get away with living without it, there is always a slow, but deliberate "policy drift" towards the use of nuclear weapons.

Such a thing occured just after their development, when the U.S seriously considered using them in Korea. When there is no worry about retaliation, there is nothing to keep the leaders in check.

In the 1980s, with the early development on the "Star Wars" missle defense, the Regan administration voiced its opinion that a nuclear war could be "won". That exchanges could be limited and that we would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of ending the world.

The end of MAD will probably lead to a nuclear exchange somewhere. Most certainly a nuclear arms race. And without a doubt, further instability around the world.
 
I'm also against blanket statements in general, but Rono's statement that a treaty with the U.S. means nothing is surprisingly accurate.

Just ask the Native Americans. I think the number is 141 treaties they made with the United States - nearly every one of them was broken. Not just in the 1800s - recently, also.

Just ask the United Nations. Despite the fact that the U.S. benefits more from the U.N. than anyone else, the U.S. simply refused to pay their dues for years. Then, when they needed the U.N. to help them pursue their geopolitical interests (i.e. bomb Afghanistan), they paid their dues and didn't even obtain U.N. security council permission to attack Afghanistan.

Put simply, the U.S. now considers itself above treaty and international law.

It would be easy to go on and on - the examples are numerous and extremely well-documented.
 
Originally posted by Danospano:
It's so encouraging to see some sense in this message board! Let's keep it up. I'm very impressed!
Click to expand...

lol. I assume by sense, you mean people agreeing with your point of view.
 
I'm a little broken over it. Being that I was not really aware of what was going around me until about 10 years ago, I missed out on what the ABM treaty really means. Could someone explain its main points? Where did it come from? Which president made it? What does our getting out of it mean to the country?

------------------
Taste is the enemy of art.
 
Originally posted by sv:

Put simply, the U.S. now considers itself above treaty and international law.

It would be easy to go on and on - the examples are numerous and extremely well-documented.
Click to expand...


I whole heartedly agree with this statement, although I think it is Bush more so- I really liked Clinton and I doubt this would be happening if he were still in office- Bush is a conservative, bible belt wanker, who has never travelled the world and is was probably fed a diet of American imperialist propagand served on a table cloth addorned with the good ol' stars n' stripes!!!!- I see his religion and patriotism just as fundamental and scary as a lot of those radical fundamentalists out there, and I hate the fact that our Prime Minister is just like Bush, he agrees with him and is just as conservative and I can not tell you how much I hate this-'hey Mr Bush I would just like to tell you that I will never subscribe to your form of humanity!!!'.....it is a sad day when treaties such as this are abandoned, makes the ideas that were presented in Orwell's 1984 seem all ot fact rather fiction sometimes- the constant fighting between the countries, the changing of history....anyway the only thing I can hope for is that our stupid PM stops being such a dick and realises that agreeing with Bush is just wrong and that there are a lot of Australians who are not happy with his views!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Sadly, it is the only doctrine that garuntees stupidity and hot-headedness doesn't lead to a nuclear exchange. Once people lose faith in MAD and believe they can get away with living without it, there is always a slow, but deliberate "policy drift" towards the use of nuclear weapons.

Such a thing occured just after their development, when the U.S seriously considered using them in Korea. When there is no worry about retaliation, there is nothing to keep the leaders in check.

In the 1980s, with the early development on the "Star Wars" missle defense, the Regan administration voiced its opinion that a nuclear war could be "won". That exchanges could be limited and that we would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of ending the world.

The end of MAD will probably lead to a nuclear exchange somewhere. Most certainly a nuclear arms race. And without a doubt, further instability around the world.
Click to expand...

I thought that Bush's argument for a missile shield was that there are already or in the near future might be nations that are too stupid/sadistic/full of hubris to respect MAD?

It seems that Russia doesn't directly feel threatened by our pulling out of the treaty; i.e. they're not afraid that we're going to start launching our missiles at them. (Whenever the missile shield is constructed, maybe the US should cut down its arsenal even further.) But it seems that Russia is worried that China and other nuclear states in Central Asia do perceive the US's intentions in that manner, whence the fear of an arms race. A classic example of perception and misperception in foreign politics, for those of you who are familiar with Robert Jervis.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-14-2001).]
 
Originally posted by U2Bama:
So you people are worried about the "unfairness" of the U.S. being able to deflect a nuclear missile that some asshole fires at us?
Click to expand...

Or maybe at the possibility of the USA to launch a nuclear missile knowing that they are invulnerable and can do everything they like.

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
 
Originally posted by Lilly:
I'm a little broken over it. Being that I was not really aware of what was going around me until about 10 years ago, I missed out on what the ABM treaty really means. Could someone explain its main points? Where did it come from? Which president made it? What does our getting out of it mean to the country?
Click to expand...

Hello,

You can find the exact text of the treaty on the site of the State government: http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html

Basically, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty prevents the build-up of a nationwide defense shield against those ballistic missiles. The rationale behind the treaty was that no country (at that time in 1972 the USSR or the USA) would fire nuclear missiles at another country as it has nothing to defend itself against a counter attack. As Speedracer said, the doctrine used was MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, the enemy may be able to destroy your country, but you have enough firepower to retaliate and destroy the enemy's country totally). The treaty was signed by Nixon and Brezhnev in 1972.
By quitting the treaty, the USA may now develop, test and implement ABM systems. On the other hand, this also gives other countries the opportunity to search for weapons that can penetrate ABM-systems. Russia has also indicated that it may not negotiate follow ups to the START-agreements (that limited the arsenal of nuclear weapons). They may also start to sell nuclear technology to Iran, a country that is a rogue state in the eyes of the USA, but not in the eyes of Russia. I think Russia also may want to sell nuclear technology to other countries. Oh, and I don't know what the effects will be on the international coalition against terrorism, of which Russia is a part. What I mean to say is that I don't know how cooperative Russia will be when the USA asks for favours.

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
 
Originally posted by OzAurora:

I whole heartedly agree with this statement, although I think it is Bush more so- I really liked Clinton and I doubt this would be happening if he were still in office- Bush is a conservative, bible belt wanker, I can hope for is that our stupid PM stops being such a dick and realises that agreeing with Bush is just wrong and that there are a lot of Australians who are not happy with his views!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Oh good grief. What intelligent comments.
It's hilarious that you bash Bush for pulling out of the ABM treaty and then extol the virtues of your god Bill Clinton. But Clinton did MUCH worse - he sold our secrets to the Chinese!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dont_turn_around
Hello everyone!
Replies
1
Views
129
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
646
mikal
mikal
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
409
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
374
Views
11K
mikal
mikal
A
Anybody living in England willing to help me out?
Replies
0
Views
438
AntonCorbijn
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom