START treaty ratified.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

START treaty ratified.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> START treaty ratified.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 12:12:31 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

The Senate finally, after some threats by some Republicans to block the ratification, ratified the START Treaty.

quote:

Thirteen Republicans broke with their top two leaders and joined 56 Democrats and two independent in providing the necessary two-thirds vote to approve the treaty. The vote was 71-26. source

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 1:18:37 PM

hertz

Posts: 1315
Joined: 8/7/2010
Status: offline

I was listening to some chat about this on the radio today. Being English, I sometimes find US politics less than transparent. So can somebody please explain this to me: Why do some Republicans apparently believe that 1500 nuclear warheads are insufficient? Or to put it another way, Why on earth would anyone vote against START?

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 1:26:02 PM

cuckoldmepls

Posts: 855
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.

(in reply to hertz)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 1:31:26 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Well, to have a shortfinger calling anyone numbnuts (even without spelling it right) is laughable:

1. Each Party shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM

launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM

warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber nuclear armaments,

so that seven years after entry into force of this Treaty and

thereafter, the aggregate numbers, as counted in accordance

with Article I11 of this Treaty, do not exceed:

(a) 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed

heavy bombers;

(b) 1550, for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on

deployed SLBMs, and nuclear warheads counted for deployed

heavy bombers;

deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and

non-deployed heavy bombers.

2. Each Party shall have the right to determine for itself

the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms.

You don't think this is enough to blow them fuckers up?

North Korea and Iran are problems for China and Russia long before us.

You should probably not try to interpret shit since you are inept at thought processes via overwhelming prima facie evidence.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to cuckoldmepls)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 1:42:09 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Just to be clear there is no working ballistic missile defence and no such technology is in development. DARPA and its contractors have blown billions of tax dollars and they are still decades away.

Even if some breakthrough happens and we had a working way to shoot down inbound ballistic warheads it would be simple matter to add more decoys to the MIRV warheads and overwhelm the interception capacity of any such system.

Missile defence is a terrible idea. Beyond the above issues it produces the illusion of a winnable nuclear conflict which renders MAD moot despite the fact that any significantnuclear exchange will be lethal levels of fallout into the jetstreams poisoning the entire planet.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 5:22:31 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.

You really shouldnt call people numbnutts, given your posting history.

From the Prague meeting between the two Presidents.

Medvedev
<We offered to the United States that we help them establish a global anti-missile defense system, and we should think about this, given the vulnerability of our world, the terrorist challenges and the possibility of using nuclear arms by terrorists existing in this world. >

(in reply to cuckoldmepls)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 6:24:53 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.

Um, I'm way more concerned about terrorists poisoning us or taking out our computer system than I am of a directed nuclear strike. I'm also more concerned about an errant missile than a directed strike.

START reduces the threat of an errant missile, and ensures that we will not continue to throw money at missile attacks, which IMO are an outdated threat for the most part (it still exists as a threat but is not as high priority as it was in the 60s and 70s).

Just because they're Democrats does not mean that they're not right occasionally.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to cuckoldmepls)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 7:47:58 PM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

The United States has enough nukes now to blow up the entire world. In this treaty we will have 85 billion to ensure that they are all working up to standards. This treaty, like most treatys is meaningless.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/22/2010 8:43:23 PM

LynnTav

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/22/2009
Status: offline

I am going to be an American Ass, and I apologize for it. Why are Americans Building a defensive shield in Europe. Oh wait, to protect Europe. Maybe you should rethink why some Republicans are against the Start Program.

(in reply to servantforuse)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: START treaty ratified. - 12/23/2010 3:17:29 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LynnTav

I am going to be an American Ass, and I apologize for it. Why are Americans Building a defensive shield in Europe. Oh wait, to protect Europe. Maybe you should rethink why some Republicans are against the Start Program.

Maybe you should rethink Americas reasons for the missile defence shield. Only a small percentage are to be based in Europe. The European plans America did have have been altered, to counter the threat from Iran, which at present, doesnt exist.

(in reply to LynnTav)

Profile

Post #: 10