RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal

RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 8:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: the US has 8000 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and the REPUBLICANS also included new nuclear weapon development in their budget, something else the Defense Department has said is not needed How many nuclear weapons do they figure it takes? The weapons we have today are 200 more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Very few and the world would be inhabitable. The Russians have close to 10000, however as I said, the delivery systems are obsolete and poorly maintained. The Russians just do not have the money to spend on maintaining a nuclear weapons force. The Kola fjord and the area around the Murmansk Russian Naval bases are littered with NUCLEAR powered vessels that have been scrapped. The last new naval weapons system that they launched was the Kursk and we know what happened to it.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 8:58:22 AM)
I don't care if they have 100,000. This is not a "more is better" scenario.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 10:00:02 AM)
The problem is that the Republicans are using the argument that the Russians HAVE nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran are trying to develop nuclear weapons SO WE NEED MORE NUKES. The same thought process also is the basis for building a base for a missile defense system that does NOT work, and even the best experts say we are at least fifteen to twenty years away. Of course there is the fact that the ABM system would have in violation of a treaty with Russia, but Bush jr. fixed that by unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty in 2002. There is another point to consider, there is no way that a defense system can be designed to defend against a large scale attack from a technologically advanced country. You can build a system that will stop one or two incoming missiles, but considering the current state of technology in N. Korea or Iran, the odds are they would miss their intended target. Also, the argument for the base on the East Coast is "Because N. Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons systems." Last time I checked (and I used google earth) N. Korea actually threatened the WEST coast. No base is planned there. The longest range missile that Iran has only has a range of 124 nautical miles. As for N. Korea, please read New ICBM missiles at North Korea parade 'fake' or North Korea's Missiles Are Fakes, Analysts Say The first article has some rather interesting pictures that really shows some problems with the missiles that were recently seen in a parade.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 10:55:23 AM)
It's a silly argument, though. Once we've covered the globe, how many times do we need to nuke it? Setting aside for the moment that whatever we decide to nuke the shit out of will ruin the world for us too.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 10:59:48 AM)
Music, that is why I keep telling everyone to give me all the nukes. I want to bury half of the world's nuclear weapons on top of Yellowstone and half on top of the Lake Toba caldera. Both are super volcanoes. Then at the appropriate time, I will detonate both stockpiles, trigger two super volcanic eruptions AND end the climate change problem by starting another Ice Age. The benefit is that my investments in the winter sports and clothing industries will go through the roof.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 11:20:16 AM)
We spend HALF the GLOBAL military budget. Way past time for Americans to wake up and realize no, we don't need more, and yes, it's to funnel money into unnecessary industry.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 11:24:21 AM)
quote: It's not in the President's budget. It's not in the Defense Department's budget--in fact, they say this move "endangers the carefully crafted defense budget." But the "conservative" house, showing their true colors lie not with fiscal responsibility but with feeding on public money for their initiatives, is attempting to force an INCREASED military budget no one but they want. But WAIT MUSE... What about "The Ryan Plan"????... I HEAR TELL That was SO WELL THOUGHT OUT

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 11:31:50 AM)
That is what the Republicans do, they spend money to help their states even though the defense department does not want the programs. A good example was a jet engine for the Joint Fighter program. The Republicans wanted to buy it, the defense department did not want it. This is what Republicans and Conservatives call Fiscal Responsibility. You notice that the Republicans and Conservatives on this board have not responded with any kind of defense for these plans. That is because there IS NO LOGICAL DEFENSE FOR THESE PLANS.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 11:59:15 AM)
quote: Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Boehner @ Camp David Friday "Gentlemen. we are losing budgetary traction, and that bootlicker Ryan is getting me nowhere. If you can't muster a credible threat, we'll be forced to cut the defense budget in by a devastating 5% to justify the 100% to medicare as we know it".

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 12:01:30 PM)
quote: If it were up to the President, we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries and we would depend on Russia to support our space program. Least you're now being honest... clearly, the last President dropped the ball on a lot of things.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 12:03:09 PM)
quote: quote: we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries How? He means if you leave out things like The Armed Forces.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 12:34:53 PM)
First of all, since the space shuttle program began, EVERY president, Republican and Democrat cut the NASA budget. NASA started looking for a replacement for the space shuttle ten years before President Bush ordered the shuttle retired. The LACK of funding for NASA keep the US in low earth orbit with no research into heavy lift vehicles or vehicles for higher orbit or even a return trip to the moon or going further. Now a true replacement program that was begun as a two year study in 1985 ended with the Challenger accident. This was a plan to replace the current shuttle with a vehicle that had a heavier lift capability AND could achieve a higher orbit. Instead, NASA spent the last ten years working on the Constellation program, which got shelved by President Bush and now they are working on Orion. A space craft that from all outside appearances looks like an over sized Apollo capsule. The most viable replacement for the space shuttle was the X33, and after spending 1.33 billion dollars on the development of the program, it was cancelled. Now NASA is working on Orion, which is seen NOT as a crew lift vehicle to and from the ISS, but as a LIFE BOAT for the ISS. Every one is banking on the development of the Commercial American Vehicle, a reusable space craft that is being developed by a number of different aerospace firms. Congress under both Democrat and Republican parties have gutted the NASA budget repeatedly. By the way, some of the programs that have been gutted included a program that was geared toward finding Near Earth Objects (asteroids) that could potentially hit the earth. Another program that was cut was geared toward preventing such an impact. In all honesty, the technology is a long way away for actually deflecting such an object, so it is probably a good idea to cut research into this area. It is also a good idea not to look for these objects, since all we could do is figure out about where the object will hit, and maybe with enough warning, we could get the people out.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 12:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: quote: we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries How? He means if you leave out things like The Armed Forces. 8,000 nuclear weapons aren't adequate against Iran or N. Korea? Damn.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 1:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: quote: we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries How? He means if you leave out things like The Armed Forces. 8,000 nuclear weapons aren't adequate against Iran or N. Korea? Damn. I think the person is referring to a Anti Ballistic Missile System that DOES NOT WORK. Actually, let me rephrase that, It has worked in tests 50% of the time. And I am referring to the Aegis based system presently deployed on ships in the US Navy. From my experience, 1 successful test does not make a fool proof system. But the Republicans want to buy this system and deploy it without letting Raytheon be given the time to perfect the system. By the way, President Obama has committed to setting up a missile defense system in Europe to protect against attacks from Iran. Considering the current state of ICBM technology that Iran has, the longest range missile deployed by Iranian forces is limited to 124 nautical miles, a point I made earlier in this thread. Now here is the rub. Experts at the the Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense have stated that we are a long way from technology that could protect the entire country from a large scale attack by a technologically advanced power, meaning anyone with technology similar to the United States. So, by all means, lets build a missile defense base on the east coast of the United States that costs 643 billion dollars and install a missile defense system that is effective 50% of the time. Makes great sense. If you are a moron.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 1:43:55 PM)
quote: So how will an east coast missile defense shield defend us against Iran or N. Korea? The shield on the west coast doesn't work. THAT is the exact same review the Korean ballistic missile tests get. THANK GOD we owe the Chinese a lot of money[:D] Too bad North Korea has nothing but fucking lint in their pockets.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 1:48:09 PM)
quote: 8,000 nuclear weapons aren't adequate against Iran or N. Korea? Well for Korea it'll certainly deter them.... the problem comes when you excercise a M.A.D. strategy against a country full of religious N.U.T.S.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 1:51:49 PM)
How about this for a Republican solution. We dont wait for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, we go ahead and Launch a nuclear first strike against Iran with 4000 nukes.

SternSkipper -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 2:09:42 PM)
quote: So, you're saying that N Korea will have nuke missiles about 2285? I'll agree with that. A date that also coincides with the date Arturas will be right on an issue. I'll be so mad if the mayan calendar interferes with that momentous occasion.

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/21/2012 2:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: So, you're saying that N Korea will have nuke missiles about 2285? I'll agree with that. A date that also coincides with the date Arturas will be right on an issue. I'll be so mad if the mayan calendar interferes with that momentous occasion. Actually, I would like to point out that Arturas and other Republicans on this board are still under the impression that the ICBM's that North Korea displayed in a military parade are real. Of course, Arturas and the other Republicans are getting their proof from a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey.

mnottertail -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/21/2012 7:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Current event update. North Korea will have nuke missles about the time this system is ready to defend the U.S. So, you're saying that N Korea will have nuke missiles about 2285? I'll agree with that. [sm=pullit.gif][sm=rofl.gif] We can only hope that they are far enough away from North Korea when they blow apart that they dont take North Korea out. They are a really fun enemy, like Wylie E Coyote.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875