USA & Russias Nuclear Disposal

[DeletedUser]

I just want to jump in here a minute to ask that this general forum rule be respected:

• Please do not include lots of unnecessary quotations.

Entirely too much quoting going on, makes it very hard for others to read the discussion and turns it all into a hate-on one on one debate that could just as well be continued in private.

Thanks,
Hellstromm

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry Hell, that's just a tactic I picked up from my troll-fighting days. It's easier to argue point-by-point that way.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry Hell, that's just a tactic I picked up from my troll-fighting days. It's easier to argue point-by-point that way.

Understood, and I've done it in the past as well, but for the most part it's not productive to the debate as a whole and alienates everyone else from the ongoing discussion.

Anyway... the whole issue of nuclear disposal is a longstanding one, and while this latest news about Obama garnering an agreement to cut down on nuclear arms sounds promising, many of us older folks have heard the same from so many Presidents in the past. What matters is not the rhetoric and promises, it's the action, the doing. So far, in my opinion, Obama has shown he's about doing, so there may actually be a downturn in the wmd escalations. Maybe, just maybe, the numbers will actually go down to something at least marginally reasonable. Because, really, the only ones benefiting from the continued arms race -- are the arms dealers (i.e., the military industrial complex).

The rest of us? We're crapping in our pants.

 

[DeletedUser]

Once again, you're not only forgetting the elephant in the room, but the one
who has spray painted himself orange with lavender spots and is doing the
Napolean Dynamite dance. Sir Monkey (Czech Republic and Poland) doesn't
have a sword (nukes), so he can only defend himself against Sir Bendos
(Russia). When you take away Sir Monkey's shield, Sir Bendos is free to
turn him into corned beef hash. Even if Sir Monkey could get a sword, it
would still be a butter knife compared to Sir Bendos' claymore.

Your failure to see Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey as analogies for Russia and USA, and not Russia and Poland/Czech Republic, says it all about your grasp of the subject. I don't like to get personal so I'll bug out here before I get infracted.
Keep studying, you can never do too much of that.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your failure to see Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey as analogies for Russia and USA, and not Russia and Poland/Czech Republic, says it all about your grasp of the subject. I don't like to get personal so I'll bug out here before I get infracted.
Keep studying, you can never do too much of that.

Well here's a news flash for you: there's nothing new about USA's missile
defense. I assumed that since we weren't talking about USA's missile defense,
you wouldn't use an analogy for it, says it all about your ability to stay on
topic. You really had no reason to throw that in there.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well here's a news flash for you: there's nothing new about USA's missile
defense. I assumed that since we weren't talking about USA's missile defense,
you wouldn't use an analogy for it, says it all about your ability to stay on
topic. You really had no reason to throw that in there.

Really? Monkey should stay quiet. monkey not know of what he speaks. Monkey got pwnd. monkey should tell everyone about Polish missile defence that they developed. Silly monkey.
:laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

Really? Monkey should stay quiet. monkey not know of what he speaks. Monkey got pwnd. monkey should tell everyone about Polish missile defence that they developed. Silly monkey.
:laugh:

Yeah, that's some good advice for you. Really, you have 0 knowledge of this topic, you got owned at every turn during the debate, and now your defeat is shown in your words. Silly monkey.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Why did they continue to make nuclear weapons once they reached the point where they had just enough to destroy life on earth.


At that point its just nations showing off but for no real reason since either side has enough to blow everything up :0

You're a freakin' genius...... yeah....showing off.......yeah. We need to hire you for foreign policy analysis committees right away.

 

[DeletedUser21656]

Yeah, that's some good advice for you. Really, you have 0 knowledge of this topic, you got owned at every turn during the debate, and now your defeat is shown in your words. Silly monkey.

KILL, I don't support your views :nowink:

1st of all, I believe Obama is doing the right thing. He is gradually changing the global landscape, especially on how the whole world is viewing America. Frankly speaking, I now see America as a more responsible and less threating Super-power. ( I'm a buddhist with a tertiary education, therefore, I am unbiased with both side of views)

2ndly, Kill, I assume you are an American right? Do you think that Obama will left your country unprotected? Relax mate, your president is a extremely smart person. From the recent events, you could see that Obama often leave a "hidden strategy" in every of his international moves. The agreement says 1550 nuclear warheads doesn't really mean anything at all as 1 nuclear warheads can fetch... a few missiles as well

3rdly, Kill, you over rely on nuclear to protect your country. America is a Super-power with highly-insane advance military technology. Even, EVEN without nuclear, America will be still dominating.

Just a penny of my thoughts

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Obama is about to lose everything, son. Just watch...you heard it hear first!

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, limsagittus, you're very right that we differ on this.

First of all, you can call me whatever you please, but some users call me Kith for short. Just FYI.

As for Obama, I believe that his actions are doing more harm than good on an international level, that we (America) are losing our ability to handle international crises. The America I see is less concerned with protecting allies than appeasing adversaries. That, however, is another story for another thread.

As you probably figured out from the previous paragraph, yes, I am American. Given his actions of late, like I said, I'm not surprised if defense isn't at the top of his priority list. I'm not sure what you mean by "hidden strategy", however.

When you state that I over rely on nukes for defense, you seem to have misinterpreted my point. I believe that in the modern diplomatic field, nukes are more a weapon of fear than force. My point on this thread is that we need to be able to protect our allies from such threats, since even fear weapons can be used for aggression. True, history has shown that our military is a force to be reckoned with, but I'm not talking about our defense, so much as that of our allies. If you look toward my debate with Bendos, you can see that that misinterpretation was a critical error for him.

Although I disagree with you, you seem to be an intelligent person (unlike some people I've debated with :dry.

 

[DeletedUser]

When you state that I over rely on nukes for defense, you seem to have misinterpreted my point. I believe that in the modern diplomatic field, nukes are more a weapon of fear than force.
My point on this thread is that we need to be able to protect our allies from such threats, since even fear weapons can be used for aggression. True, history has shown that our military is a force to be reckoned with, but I'm not talking about our defense, so much as that of our allies. If you look toward my debate with Bendos, you can see that that misinterpretation was a critical error for him.

Would that be the misinterpretation where I showed that the majority of Poles/Czechs didn't want the shield even though you stated as such without any proof. Or would that be where I didn't fail to grasp that putting a missile system into Eastern Europe to protect US troops would actually threaten European civilians? You know the bit where Russia feels threatened by a proposed negation of it's ICBM capability to retaliate and decides to starve Europe of gas and oil.
Really, when are you going to realise that Europeans don't want it; it doesn't verifiably work anyway; and it actually threatens Russia's own defence and unstables the region because they would be totally impotent if you negate their abilty to make a retaliatory strike. It is an offensive weapon because, Russia would argue, if you are not going to launch against Russia then you do not need a shield because Russia has no intention of launching against NATO. If you are protecting against Iran, then just share the technology with the Russians. I'm sure they would love to have a shield against their troublesome Southern neighbours. The Shield is a warning signal to Russia and is interpreted (quite correctly by them) as a means to nulify their retaliatory capabilities. Just try and put yourself in Russia's shoes. You say that a shield threatens nobody but the Russians felt threatened. Did you ever stop to ask why?

 

[DeletedUser]

You just had to drag us into this again, did you?

Anyway, there are so may errors in your statement, it would be easier just to point them out in list form:

1. On no occasion did you claim that a majority of Poles/Czechs didn't want the defense.
2. On that note, I never said otherwise.
3. I explained to you many times that missile defense is not an offensive weapon, and I tore apart your poorly-constructed analogy of it.
4. Dammit, I explained to you so many times that missile defense is not an offensive weapon, and now you don't get that it doesn't threaten European citizens? For God's sake, nobody uses missile defense to harm their own people.
5. The Russian government isn't stupid, they won't be more likely to launch a nuke when it's more likely to be intercepted.
6. You contradicted yourself once again. If Russia's ability to threaten with nukes is hampered, you claim that they will use another manner to threaten, namely gas and oil. If they have no intention of threat, why would they need to do such a thing?
7. No, the Russians didn't feel threatened, rather that their ability to bully Eastern Europe was dashed.
8. In Russia's shoes, I see the Obama administration cowering before me, sacrificing their allies' security in favor of my will. That only makes me feel more powerful.
9. In particular, the misinterpretation I mentioned in in my previous post was in your analogy, in which you seemed to believe that the missile defense was in America, and that Russia had none of their own.

 

[DeletedUser]

You just had to drag us into this again, did you?

Ahem. Who's dragging whom?

If you look toward my debate with Bendos, you can see that that misinterpretation was a critical error for him.
Although I disagree with you, you seem to be an intelligent person (unlike some people I've debated with :dry.

Anyway, there are so may errors in your statement, it would be easier just to point them out in list form:

1. On no occasion did you claim that a majority of Poles/Czechs didn't want the defense.

Is that so?

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm
and this as to popularity in Czech republic and Russian reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense

2. On that note, I never said otherwise.

Oh really?

That wasn't really an option before the deal was terminated. Now that it is, anything launched at
Czech Republic or Poland will have little chance of being intercepted............

Perhaps it is, but what's not scloblok (is that Norwegian?) is protecting one's allies in a deal that benefits only your rivals,
and enrages your allies. Truly, the Poles and Czechs are not happy about this.

3. I explained to you many times that missile defense is not an offensive weapon, and I tore apart your poorly-constructed analogy of it.

I understand what missile defence is and does. I said:

A defensive shield is actually an offensive weapon. If a rival develops a means to make your deterrence useless, wouldn't you see that as a threat?

Your failure is to see how a defensive weapon can threaten a rival and hence be deemed an “offensive” action.

4. Dammit, I explained to you so many times that missile defense is not an offensive weapon, and now you don't get that it doesn't threaten European citizens?

Your extensive knowledge of Geo-Politics is truly amazing. Have you even got a passport? If you want to antagonise a powerful neighbour for absolutely no reason then you are mad. Anyway, since this is supposed to be a shield against Iran, why aren’t you sharing it with the Russians?

5. The Russian government isn't stupid, they won't be more likely to launch a nuke when it's more likely to be intercepted.

I never said they would.

6. You contradicted yourself once again. If Russia's ability to threaten with nukes is hampered, you claim that they will use another manner to threaten, namely gas and oil. If they have no intention of threat, why would they need to do such a thing?

Actually I didn't say that. I said that they are using the energy threat to STOP DEVELOPMENT of a shield. A shield that they feel threatens them. You really don't read things closely do you?

7. No, the Russians didn't feel threatened, rather that their ability to bully Eastern Europe was dashed.

If you mean their ability to say, invade Georgia (that’s a country btw and not just a US state) or cut off energy supplies to Europe is bullying, then I guess that that ability will remain. Unless of course, the US threatens a nuke launch to keep Russia in line knowing it can intercept Russian nukes. But you wouldn't do that now would you?

8. In Russia's shoes, I see the Obama administration cowering before me, sacrificing their allies' security in favor of my will. That only makes me feel more powerful.

Thankfully for world security, you have a President with more intellect than you.

9. In particular, the misinterpretation I mentioned in in my previous post was in your analogy, in which you seemed to believe that the missile defense was in America, and that Russia had none of their own.

You have failed to prove that Russia has a workable missile defence and I NEVER SAID THAT MISSILE DEFENCE WAS IN AMERICA, just that it is an American missile defence system.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

 

[DeletedUser]

First things first: Hellstrom said to quit it with the excessive quotations. And now you're saying reading comprehension isn't my strong suit?

To continue, yes, it's you dragging us. The debate was effectively over, until you came and assaulted it again with the same half-assed points and faulty logic.

Furthermore, your failure to understand that DEFENSIVE WEAPONS ARE NOT USED OFFENSIVELY has crossed from misunderstanding into pure stupidity. The only potential loss to Russia would be if they had one less missile after they launched it, and it was intercepted. Despite what you say, you really don't understand how missile defense works.

No, the Russians will not use the energy threat to prevent production of the shield. Why not? They can't, because THE SHIELD WAS ALREADY BUILT, and subsequently terminated. You really have no idea what the scenario is.

Speaking of which, yes, USA can intercept Russian nukes, but what you don't understand is that the same is true vice-versa. The shield merely extended the protection to our allies. Once again, you are far off topic, as we are talking about missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic. Well, at least I am. Your subject is jumping from Russian defenses, to American defenses, to American nukes, to Iranian nukes, to Georgia (the one south of Russia), and everywhere in between.

Also, your analogy was pretty far from the topic. Let's have another look at it:

Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey are enemies. Both have a sword and know that if 1 attacks, then the other will swing their sword at the same time and also kill the other. Thus both die. However, Sir Monkey picks up a shield and now says to Sir Bendos, I have a shield. that means I can swing my sword and kill you and at the same time survive your sword blow with my shield. i.e. Sir Bendos, I own you dude. I am totally top monkey.
Sir Bendos thinks, I seriously need one of those shields dude.

First we were talking about missile defenses in Poland and Czech Republic, and then you brought up USA as an entity. The missile defenses were intended to protect Poland and Czech Republic, not USA. After that, you assumed that Sir Bendos had no shield. Newsflash: Russia has missile defense. Here's a more accurate analogy:

Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey are enemies. Sir Bendos has a sword and a shield, but Sir Monkey has neither. Sir Monkey is at the mercy of Sir Bendos, until Sir KILLTHEHIPPIE, who also has a sword and shield, gives Sir Monkey one of his extra shields. Now Sir Monkey has a shield, and Sir Bendos can't kill him with the sword. Sir Monkey may not have a sword, but that's OK, as long as he's safe.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Let's simplify things shall we?

When your neighbor has missiles and insists that you do not develop a defensive capability against his offensive weapons you can be assured it is not your offensive capability he's attacking. He's defending his ability to threaten....