Twin Fist
Grandmaster
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/
uh, yeah.
I think McCain just won the election..........
uh, yeah.
I think McCain just won the election..........
Apparently, Obama wants to disarm America
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
I had a watch of the video and I have to say that I think the sites claim that he's planning to Disarm America is hardly accurate.
The only thing that gave me pause was when he started to talk about getting rid of nukes. But then I actually listened to what he was saying {with my politco BS filter cranked up to 10 of course :lol:}.
MAD only works against nations. A terrorist band that used a nuke on American soil couldn't give a monkeys if America subsequently flings a nuke back at their putative home country because they know that world outrage would fall on the American's, not them. Would the death of thousands of their own countrymen bother them? What do you think?
So, how many nukes do you actually need? That's the real question. In the Cold War, quantity and quality/deployment speed of delivery system was key as we had to be able to convince the Soviets that we really could execute MAD if necessary. So we needed huge numbers of the darned things. Now, not nearly so many.
Obama, as far as I could tell, was not talking about getting rid of all nukes tomorrow. Very sensibly he was on about getting rid of all the obsolete units that are just costing you money for no deterent effect and dressing it up to sound like a 'peacemaker'.
The only thing that gave me pause was when he started to talk about getting rid of nukes. But then I actually listened to what he was saying {with my politco BS filter cranked up to 10 of course :lol:}.
MAD only works against nations. A terrorist band that used a nuke on American soil couldn't give a monkeys if America subsequently flings a nuke back at their putative home country because they know that world outrage would fall on the American's, not them. Would the death of thousands of their own countrymen bother them? What do you think?
So, how many nukes do you actually need? That's the real question. In the Cold War, quantity and quality/deployment speed of delivery system was key as we had to be able to convince the Soviets that we really could execute MAD if necessary. So we needed huge numbers of the darned things. Now, not nearly so many.
Obama, as far as I could tell, was not talking about getting rid of all nukes tomorrow. Very sensibly he was on about getting rid of all the obsolete units that are just costing you money for no deterent effect and dressing it up to sound like a 'peacemaker'.
And apparently you just can't sit back and let any Republican Lie Machine talking points move off the front pages. There's been a whole bunch of "The Scary Negro is Going Take Away Your Guns and Let The Ravening Hordes Steal Your Precious Bodily Fluids" threads. The moment it doesn't show up at the top of the new threads page you just have to bring it back to our attention.
Typical. Predictable. Tedious.
Typical. Predictable. Tedious.
Not being combative (no pun intended), TF but why should slowing down the pace of weapons development be such a bad thing?
Most of the advanced systems still going through the mill now were designed for the type of army that no longer exists to fight. Once the Western military technological edge reached a certain point, the days of stand-up fights were over. Iraq was the last "hurrah!" where the essentially surplus military hardware got to be put to use before it exceeded it's shelf life.
Look what happened when the same 'trick' was tried in Somalia.
The things that need to be developed are essentially infantry based and altho' not cheap as we would see it, they are not expensive in terms of the gargantuan scale of the American military budget.
As long as things aren't left to stagnate and the ideas are still coming forward, there's no need to fear that some sneaky other country is going to abruptly leap ahead.
Plus, there is the very real truth that America simply cannot afford such a proportion of it's budget being spent on things-that-go-boom-overseas. I've touched on it occasionally here at MT in different threads but the American economy is dead - it just hasn't stopped twitching. It's propped up by stunning amounts of debt that is owed to many other countries (some of whom are theoretically unfriendly).
Unusual Aside: One odd note I'll throw into the hat is that we (Britain) are actually building aircraft carriers again for the first time in decades).
Most of the advanced systems still going through the mill now were designed for the type of army that no longer exists to fight. Once the Western military technological edge reached a certain point, the days of stand-up fights were over. Iraq was the last "hurrah!" where the essentially surplus military hardware got to be put to use before it exceeded it's shelf life.
Look what happened when the same 'trick' was tried in Somalia.
The things that need to be developed are essentially infantry based and altho' not cheap as we would see it, they are not expensive in terms of the gargantuan scale of the American military budget.
As long as things aren't left to stagnate and the ideas are still coming forward, there's no need to fear that some sneaky other country is going to abruptly leap ahead.
Plus, there is the very real truth that America simply cannot afford such a proportion of it's budget being spent on things-that-go-boom-overseas. I've touched on it occasionally here at MT in different threads but the American economy is dead - it just hasn't stopped twitching. It's propped up by stunning amounts of debt that is owed to many other countries (some of whom are theoretically unfriendly).
Unusual Aside: One odd note I'll throw into the hat is that we (Britain) are actually building aircraft carriers again for the first time in decades).
Wow. Thanks for brining up the point, yet again, that everyone who is against Obama as President must be racist.
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #7
cuz the biggest advantage an army can have is equipment and training
the US army has the best training, but if we are not also the best equiped? our casualties go up a LOT.
And weapon systems can referre to anything from a new new fighter to low tech stuff like a new rifle.
Or new high tech stuff like an un-manned drone. Those alone save us a LOT of casualties. If we didnt have the drones, people would have to do that recon mission, and those people, some of them anyway, would get dead.
We may not need a new main battle tank, I agree with you, but we do need stuff like the new infantry battle suit.....with the better armor, and better man carried weapons.
the US army has the best training, but if we are not also the best equiped? our casualties go up a LOT.
And weapon systems can referre to anything from a new new fighter to low tech stuff like a new rifle.
Or new high tech stuff like an un-manned drone. Those alone save us a LOT of casualties. If we didnt have the drones, people would have to do that recon mission, and those people, some of them anyway, would get dead.
We may not need a new main battle tank, I agree with you, but we do need stuff like the new infantry battle suit.....with the better armor, and better man carried weapons.
Yeah, because that isn't
I quoted the whole post because, other than maybe a nationalist dispute on whose trained the best
, I don't disagree with any of it.What I was saying is that the 'gap' only needs to be maintained, not widened and noone in the world has a hope of coming close, even if America stopped spending anything.
Things take a long while to develop if they're complex and based on new technologies but as long as an eye is kept on what the anticipated enemy is up to then you're not going to get caught out.
At present, it's a race with one entrant and the money would be better spent elsewhere before the whole house of cards collapses.
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #12
guys trust me, just put tellner on Ignore, he isnt worth it, his posts are, well lets just call it "less than factual", and you can get the exact same stuff from MoveOn or Democraticunderground
For the record, I couldnt care less that Obama is half black
i care that he is off the charts liberal, he lies about his church, he lies about his religion, he lies about his patriotism, he cries cuz his wife is actually held accountable for her crap, and when it isnt scripted, he cant talk to save his life.
For the record, I couldnt care less that Obama is half black
i care that he is off the charts liberal, he lies about his church, he lies about his religion, he lies about his patriotism, he cries cuz his wife is actually held accountable for her crap, and when it isnt scripted, he cant talk to save his life.
Gents, a friendly suggestion.
Put the people who are really bugging you on ignore, and cut out the name calling, finger pointing, back handed comments, full out punches and whatnot.
You'll enjoy your stay here much more if you do that.
I'd hate to see anyone here get a vacation that doesn't end until the inauguration.
Savvy?
Thanks.
Put the people who are really bugging you on ignore, and cut out the name calling, finger pointing, back handed comments, full out punches and whatnot.
You'll enjoy your stay here much more if you do that.
I'd hate to see anyone here get a vacation that doesn't end until the inauguration.
Savvy?
Thanks.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
That usually doesn't work for me...when the inanity gets too high I just stop reading the Study (that's not why I'm here anyway).
There's people on many sides of the political spectrum who, in all honesty, I tend to think of as rather idiots, leaning toward the inflammatory and combative. But I don't care because some of these same people occasionally have useful things to say in the Martial Arts universe. So I read those forums that are more in line with what this place is all about. If I blocked tellner or TF or...whomever, I wouldn't get a chance to read what they say about MA, SD, and other topics that are rather dearer to my heart then their opinions on politics.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Our military spending is nearly half of the world total. I think we can afford to scale back some new spending and new developments. Also, cut back on discretionary wars, that would be helpful.
As for nuclear disarmament, it has been a long term goal of the US, supported by Bush and now McCain. I doubt it will make any electoral difference.
As for nuclear disarmament, it has been a long term goal of the US, supported by Bush and now McCain. I doubt it will make any electoral difference.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
It also doesn't make much sense for us to have as many Nukes as we do. We had enough to destroy the whole planet like 10 times over in the peek of the Cold War. And, the UN has already forbade there use and manufacture, so it doesn't make much sense for us to have them and invade other countries because they might be making them.
Discretionary wars?
Care to define that term?
Oh, let me:Any war entered into by a Republican president with bipartisan support.
Wait, did I say bipartisan support? Yes, indeed, because quite a number of congressional democrats voted to allow the use of force in Iraq.
Oh, Twin Fist, you are forgetting the US is the wellspring of all international problems. tsk tsk...
How dare we enforce UN resolutions?
Mod-Mode:
Gentlemen, if you are going to persist in this avenue of arguing on narrow points without accepting the wider connotations, then I advise you to read once again Mr. Hubbard's warning that if you cannot conduct an argument like adults then the whole debate will be taken away.
Gentlemen, if you are going to persist in this avenue of arguing on narrow points without accepting the wider connotations, then I advise you to read once again Mr. Hubbard's warning that if you cannot conduct an argument like adults then the whole debate will be taken away.
