Another thing I said about liberals coming true...

[MONOLITH]

Someone please explain this to me, seriously.

Here's the current scenario;  We have Iran still announcing that one day they will to nuke Isreal. (and maybe the rest of the west).

We have North Korea who does have missiles that can reach deep into the west US coastline; they just have to learn to fly them better.

I would say those are globally 'destabilizing' factors, yes?

We have republicans who are ready to create the missile defense system that could protect the nation from these wackos.

And we have the new liberal congress who says "Oh gee, we can't build defensive systems. That's too destabalizing and threatening to others."

Huh?

That's the problem with libs. Turn the other cheek, until it gets shot off.

I don't get it. Really.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/star_wars_reduxdemocrats_to_gu.php#comments


.

[Laughing_Bun]

so true. I cannot stand liberals, they are just a bunch of morally corrupt socialists. And they are completly unwavering in their views. the liberal way is always right, when everyone knows that the moderates are right

[TaLoN]

so true. I cannot stand liberals, they are just a bunch of morally corrupt socialists. And they are completly unwavering in their views. [color="Black"]the liberal way is always right[/color], when everyone knows that the moderates are right

Thats a funny quote considering the republicans are the exact same way, Althou I agree that moderates are the best.

I cant comment on the missle defence system due to lack of knoledege of what it actually entails, I do know that Canadain Officials have huge problems with it and have denied Bush's wishes to cooperate with it.  

I do belive that a system should be in place as im sure most would, even liberals would as well, maybe its to do with the context of how it should be done, cost, etc.

[MONOLITH]

they are just a bunch of morally corrupt socialists.

Well, I want to try and keep the flaming to a minimum. And Talon's right, the corruption certainly goes both ways.

But I will never understand the left's knack for aiding the enemy.

Let's not defend ourselves. Let's give Hitler the benefit of the doubt. I don't get it.   And to say Any defense system is 'destabilizing', when you literally have two countries threatening to nuke us, is ridiculous.

Russia is sending air defense systems to Iran right now, to protect their nuke facilities from US or Isreali air attacks. Isn't that 'destabilizing'?

[TaLoN]

after some reading I understand why its an issue,  The plan being to put missle shooting satalite thingys in space.  Now technically this a sound idea, and would work, BUT who owns space, no country.  A act of dominance like this, without the venture and satalites actually being a UN agreed and funded project, would basically state that the U.S.  owns the skies, now you know and I know that Russia and China arnt gonna stand for that, so what happens welcome to the next cold war except it might not be so cold this time.  

The Easiest soloution isnt always the best,  Now im all for getting something done for an anti measure, but steping on bigger bullies toes to smack the little bullies doesnt seam wise.
What about land to air counter measures, hacking guidance systems, etc, with all our tech and inventions can there be any other solution that doesnt involve pissing in others pools.

PS: If this was russia vs iran the u.s. would be the seller of the defense systems, where theres a buyer theres a seller.

[MONOLITH]

PS: If this was russia vs iran the u.s. would be the seller of the defense systems, where theres a buyer theres a seller.

Very true. As is the rest of your post.  :cookie:


But, when we are threatened, openly;  Our defense has to come before anything else, whether it be toes or political correctness.

[DaSmerg]

I don't see how you can be strongly advocating the weaponization of space Mono?  Not only that, but spending hundreds of billions on a blanket program that hinges on some still theoretical counter measures?  I'm a bit confused myself.

I'm all for defence of homeland...how can anyone realisitcally say they are opposed to it?  But for the U.S. to be the first country to start building weapons platforms in space would start a new yet another arms race, this time with several more players than the Cold War encompassed.

[Lazerblade]

If we're spending that much to defend a fragile system here, why not go all out and build a colony on the moon? Transport a fully-stocked zoo up there. We can call it Noah's Ark and let the rest of the countries battle it out until Earth is decimated. They don't want us involved, then we should just let them screw themselves.

Oh, and we're taking our entertainment with us. Including David Hasslehoff.

[MONOLITH]

If we're spending that much to defend a fragile system here, why not go all out and build a colony on the moon?

Funny you should say that, I just came to post this...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/04/D8LQ8TKO0.html

I don't see how you can be strongly advocating the weaponization of space Mono?  Not only that, but spending hundreds of billions on a blanket program that hinges on some still theoretical counter measures?  I'm a bit confused myself.

You shouldn't be confused at all, actually.

You don't want nuclear weapons in the world. Okay, then you should want a system that renderers interballistic missiles obsolete.

You will never get rid of missiles, no matter how much you try non proliferation acts and treaties, etc. And you have countries that are actively stating they will send their missiles into other countries. Right now, the best you can do to defend not only your own country but your allies, is ground based anti-missile systems (the patriot system, etc).

By putting a similar system on a satellite, launches can be detected immediately, and their location pinpointed, and an immediate response to shoot it down.  With ground based systems, a defensive rocket is not launched until the incoming missile is almost on top of you already.

So, the point is, you already have anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This merely improves them, and moves them into a better location.

And whether you support weapons in space or you don't, it's going to happen anyway.

And you can do it first, or you can let your enemies do it first. which would you prefer.

Sure, the ideal answer is 'no weapons at all. let's all get along'., but you and I know that simply will never happen.

As far as the technology being 'largely theoretical', everything starts out theoretical including that keyboard your typing on. Doesn't mean it won't be made perfectly functional.

[MONOLITH]

I don't see how you can be strongly advocating the weaponization of space Mono?

And just to be absolutely crystal clear on this comment;

I DO NOT WANT WEAPONS IN SPACE.

I DO NOT WANT WEAPONS AT ALL.

But, since the dawn of time mankind has sought to conquer each other, and even in 2006, there are those that will conquer us if we are weak enough, or they are strong enough.

Since that is a reality, I have no choice but to support the best defense my country can create.

Anything less is foolish.


Look at it this way;

The Chinese did not want to build The Great Wall. It took a long time, a ton of resources, and no one knew for sure it would be completely reliable. I bet it was even deemed 'destabilizing' by many.

But had they not built it, the Mongol barbarians would have taken China.

Mankind today has not changed in any way. Only the technology has.

True Security, comes from strength and deterrents, not promises of peace.

[Laughing_Bun]

so true. i agree with what MONO said. its just a sad fact of reality. Its like trying to end poverty and live in peace it WILL NEVER HAPPEN so we just have to accept the way it is and try out best. Without bashing the liberals more, it seems like they are always chasing this pipe dream and refuse to face reality.

[BajaBravo]

On the surface, developing the capacity to defend oneself against ICBMs is certainly an compelling idea. Who wouldn't want to shoot an incoming nuke down before it hits?

The problem in my mind is this: What's the difference between a space-based missile defence platform and a space-based offensive platform? Best intentions and semantics aside, not much. Should anyone develop this kind of "defensive" system, they will have developed an offensive capacity as well. If you can target incoming missiles and killer satellites, you can also target just about anything in the sky and probably a lot of stuff on the ground as well.

Sure, "we" would never do that but consider this. What if it was China or Russia having this debate, not the US? We would be going ape-sh!t. It is not reasonable to expect they wouldn't react the same way to the US developing that capability. They are just as paranoid about us as we are of them. They would be forced to develop their own space-based systems and before too long we are all staring down the barrel of a gun once again. History repeats itself.

A ground-based missile defence system is a different story because it doesn't have the same inherent offensive capacity. At least not an offensive capability that exceeds the  current ICBM inventory. If the US were to erect an impenetrable "bubble" around the country, the same defensive effect as a space-based is achieved without threatening anyone else. Best of all, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, or whoever could develop similar technology without it directly threatening the US.

Just my $0.02. It's a tough issue.

[BajaBravo]

Another quick point... a ground-based defensive system can still utilize space-based senors to detect launches immediately. It is putting the actual weapon platform in space that causes the problem. Regardless of whether the system is ground or space based, the actual decision to shoot anything down would have to be made a human being with a lot of authority. It's not like you could just switch the system on automatic unless you want a guaranteed war.

[MONOLITH]

Excellent points.

Unfortunately, mankind still has too much animal in him; and the historical trend has always been, and probably will be for awhile, to develop a more powerful weapon first, rather than concentrate on the sensible defense.

If we build the bubble, someone will work on a bubble buster bomb.

I don't think weapons escalation will ever end until we just go ahead and wipe ourselves out. Obviously that's not something I'm advocating; I just think the human race is too stupid to avoid it.

[BajaBravo]

I don't think weapons escalation will ever end until we just go ahead and wipe ourselves out. Obviously that's not something I'm advocating; I just think the human race is too stupid to avoid it.

Unfortunately you are probably right.

[DaSmerg]

I think this point is going to take a little digestion and isn't meant as a slam...but an apparent reality is that 5% of the world's population (namely the United States) is spending 95% of the world's combined (known) military budget.

[MONOLITH]

Where did you get 95% from ?

It's only 48%, and that's fairly low for a global superpower AND it includes the $300 billion spent on Iraq.


http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending




Maybe our 48% is because 70% of the world would like to take us out and take what we have.

That's the way it goes when you're on top, with anything. We love to create a hero and launch him to celebrity status, then we love to laugh as he falls from grace.

Human nature is pretty twisted.

And it's not our fault that we have the funds to maintain not only the military that the envy of the world needs to have, but the same military that travels the globe to bail out many of those nations much of the time.

To somehow make it seem like 'wrongdoing' because we have the biggest military budget, is America bashing simply for the sake of America bashing.



.

[DaSmerg]

Erm, as I said, it's a comment that needs digestion, even on my part.

To start with, it's a distorted comment by the more factual figures in your link.  Interesting fact from your link which goes along with what I was intending to say...

World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1,118 billion in current dollars;..

The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each

I'll most definately have to disagree with your observation.  You're observing in a distinctly American P.o.V....that is...that the world loves to knock a hero or the guy on top.

[MONOLITH]

I'll most definately have to disagree with your observation.  You're observing in a distinctly American P.o.V....that is...that the world loves to knock a hero or the guy on top.

That's is most definately not an American thing.  That's a human race thing. It's gone on all throughout human history. And it's evident in every tabloid magazine all over the world.

It's the reason we love celebrity mugshots.

http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/11/14/people_hot_water/photoessay583683.shtml


It's the reason we love to watch the Whitney Houston/Bobby Brown reality show. People cherished her as a great singer, then they want to laugh at her being a crack addict.




"When I was a fighting-man, the kettle-drums they beat,
The people scattered gold-dust before my horse's feet;
But now I am a great king, the people hound my track
With poison in my wine-cup, and daggers at my back."



.

[Ronin]

It is my belief that China is going to put weapons into space.  That is, in my view, the sole reason for their aspirations to send one or more missions to the moon.  This is a cover for development of heavy lift vehicles (just like it was for us) so that they can loft space platforms (whole or in pieces) into Earth orbit.  

China has been spending a tremendous amount of money modernizing and building up their military.  They have been buying military hardware from Russia and Ukraine and have begun "dogging" US Navy vessels at sea (witness the recent detection of a Chinese sub quite close to a US Navy ship).

Since China is awash in revenue from the west (mostly from the US), they have to spend the money somewhere.  They buy/steal technology from the US (thank you so much, Mr. Clinton) and then use it for military purposes.

I do not believe for one instant that China is an ally or even friendly.  They are just biding their time until they can stand against us militarily.  I believe at that time, they will be much more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.

I also believe that if we do not develop technology to safeguard our space assets (or provide for their rapid replacement) as well as put weapons platforms into space we will be under the hegemony of China in 50 years or less.