Bush to quit ABM treaty

[U2Bama]

Sula:

We seem to agree on quite a bit; I was about to post the exact same comment!

~U2Alabama

[sulawesigirl4]

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!

lol. I assume by sense, you mean people agreeing with your point of view.

[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?

------------------
Taste is the enemy of art.

[OzAurora]

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.

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!!!!!!

[speedracer]

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.

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).]

[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?

[Popmartijn]

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?

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

[Popmartijn]

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?

Hello,

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

[80sU2isBest]

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!!!!!!

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!

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by TylerDurden:
What is the definition of a 'Rogue Nation'?

Anyone?

[Angela Harlem]

Tyler, you get a country, that is full of rogues, and it becomes a rogue nation.

Oz, explain me something. People keep saying Howard is an arse kisser, he has his head firmly wedged up Bush's arse etc etc etc. But how many votes did he get in by? "Beazley couldn't be trusted, Howard has all the experience with all this shit over in America and Afghanistan, it isn't right to send in poor old Beazley when he hasn't done this before. We can't trust him to run this country!" But thats right, you (not you specifically) didn't vote for him. It was the same cry with the GST. All bitching and cries of "I never voted Liberal! How did this happen!!!" For the 1st time ever, I voted Liberal. I dont like for one second the way its carried on, I dont like the GST, the massive fuel excise, the damn embarrassing brown nosing he does, I could go on for hours here. But I really didnt like the alternatives. You are lucky, you have found a party that you feel confident in, the Greens. Unfortuantely the Greens I doubt will ever lead this country. But in the meantime, we have little choice but to accept that Johnny and co. will be here for a long time. The majority opinion seems to reflect your views, and I agree in some part, but they keep getting in, and Im stumped as to how too.

[TylerDurden]

The Bush family are good friends of the Australian Liberal Party, back in the 70's Labor were going to try and make it so that mining oil somewhere in Australia (I can't remember where) was going to be for Australian companies only. Liberal said if they get in in the next election they'd let o/seas companies in. The company that would have benefited best from this was a Bush family oil co, who 'apparently' assisted the Liberal party with quite a few $$ to get them through. In the end they didn't need an election (the dismissal), but it makes them pretty cosy. Small world huh? Plus Aus Liberals and US Republicans are very similar parties ideologicaly.
I voted Lib this time round as well. 'Cos although there are so many things about them that I can't stand, I just didn't think Labor could pull it off, and you have to face it, it's gonna be a million years before someone other then those two gets in. Besides I live in the safest Liberal seat in the country (something stupid like 95%) so a vote for Labor where I live is as good as a vote for the 3 Day Weekend Party Party, and the local guy is pretty good.