Reply With QuoteNo, just the man at the wheel.Originally Posted by Moose
He's yet to give me reason to.
So how much in the opposite direction would you like the relation with Russian to go? Do you seriously think a president could give away information that could harm the US. You don't think there are motives for what they do in foreign politics? Do you mean to say that the institution that is the United states is gullible when it comes to foreign politics?
Have a little faith...
No, just the man at the wheel.
He's yet to give me reason to.
Puffy, don't you understand the difference between add and replace? Those ICBMs,SBLMs,SSBNs and Strategic bombers are replacing the old ones. Russian has added a single missile to its existing stockpile of nuke.
Of course I recognize the difference between the two. I also recognize the more important point of having running assembly lines verses trying to make 40 year old missiles keep working while your expertise and workforce withers away to nothing.
you should spend less time on the internet and more time reading books. one example would be Nixon and China.
By now you should understand that what he wants or thinks isn't the end of all things, the presidents personal opinion can guide a process however the process is based on facts. Issues regarding defense and security are not something the president dreams up himself. For example the president may want to close Guantanamo but when you take office facts might be presented that force you to reconsider, this happens in any country. "Giving" information to the Russians wasn't something he himself came up with.Its part of some strategy devised deep within the pentagon with experts who know whats to gain and loose.
Have a little faith and if not look at the countries history there is nothing new going on.
Ok, so Medvedev got reach, but Obama will have more flexibility!(Damn you, Mass Effect!
) Sorry, couldn't resist.
I'm kind of skeptic about proposed tactical weapons cuts. There is no such effective means of control like in case of strategic weapons. There is always a chance what the partner/adversary have some hidden stockpiles. Nuclear artillery shells, tactical missiles warheads, cruise missiles is too small, don't reqire a complex storage infrastrucure, easily transportable and can be fielded in just few hours. If ageement would be signed, it will be just a worthless piece of paper (just like the "New START", btw).
You guys might forgot, but Medvedev is a goner too.
I’d be happy to give up European BDM’s for a free pass to drop MOP’s.
The workforce is not withering away. America's Trident line is still open and building at a steady rate, and the brains behind Peacekeeper still work on commercial vehicles. Minuteman IIIs are tested regularly to make sure they work and that we're still maintaining them, one was launched in February. They also just completed a major upgrade in 2009 which replaced their solid booster fuel. Ground-Based Missile defense uses silo and booster technology which is very similar to that of ICBMs. New solid booster programs including SM-3 Block II and the Space Launch System's Block II upgrade are keeping the technology moving forward.
Russia, by the way, had to raid their retirement homes to get those missile programs on track, and the performance of more than one is still suspect. And a series of quality-control failures in their largely military-run Space Program could be a warning sign for their strategic weapons.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpoli...rattles-polandThe headline in the largest Polish tabloid, Fakt: “Were they trading Poland? Puzzling Obama talk with Medvedev about the missile shield.”
Barack Obama doesn't care about Pole people.
"Fakt" as a source of anything? This is "The" Sun level paper... Nothing to see there...
...........“The Beschloss-Talbott book directly quotes Bush as telling Gorbachev in 1987 that in the coming presidential campaign he would be saying things in his speeches that would displease Gorbachev but that Gorbachev should disregard. He had to make such speeches, Bush said, because of “the marginal intellectual thugs” around President Reagan.”
You conveniently do forget that nuclear disarmament is a requirement under the NPT you signed and under which you wish to bomb Iran?Hopefully he doesn't get another atomic wedgie and his lunch money stolen this time. Last time it ended up that we cut weapons while Russia builds more. Hardly a "deal" if you ask me. (Unless you're Russian of course.) Maybe Barry's hoping that if he gets a 2nd term it will come with a 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.
And what build-up? As another poster wrote, Russia has REPLACED warheads and still the number Russia fields is shrinking, as they can't afford to keep up the numbers.
Now this is my first post on here so forgive any naivity but im keen to get involved.
It doesnt seem to me like anything Obama would do could compromise US national security, with that armada of advisors etc. that he has. Maybe Obama wants to save any plans he has for deals on Russia involved with arms/ strategic weapons after the election so he can make some vote winning promises in regards to foreign relations in his campaign?
Posting Permissions
