speedracer
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,604
Thoughts?
Originally posted by speedracer:
Thoughts?
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.
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.
Doh!!! I meant to write "boxcutters" the first time and will now chaneg it. Thanks for catching me, melon.Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
This reminds me of the "Bear Patrol" on the Simpsons...
~melon
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).]
Originally posted by speedracer:
Thoughts?
Do we want MAD (mutual assured destruction) to continue to be the doctrine that governs nuclear policy?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
Oh good grief. What intelligent comments.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!!!!!!
Originally posted by TylerDurden:
What is the definition of a 'Rogue Nation'?