|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 10:34:33 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 589
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
It would seem the main "worry" in this thread is that as soon as President Bush is gone....
we won't practice bold military strategy world-wide.
Quite an attitude for a Christian Forum.
Forgive me if I abstain from further comment, I'd like to keep my integrity intact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 12:29:19 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1086
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
I could never figure out the attractiveness of MAD. It seems to me that if we were going to perish, why go to all the trouble and expense of building exotic weaponry? Just go merrily on our way and hope that the other guys will have mercy on us and maybe we could all get together and sing Kum Ba Yah. Yeah, right.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
rlj, I didn't read every single line of your last several posts, so forgive me if I missed something, but I don't understand why you are bent on maintaining MAD. What is wrong with a defensive measure that DOESN'T annihilate the other side? To me it just reflects development of weapons and defenses as has always been done. One side comes up with a weapon, the other side soon gets it too. One side comes up with a way to stop a certain weapon, the other side has to come up with a new weapon. Use for an example the armored knight. For a while, the armored knight was the terror of the battlefield. It was difficult to penetrate his defenses and he had reign over the battlefield. Then, armor piecing crossbow bolts and increased use of gunpowder weapons rendered an armored warrior useless on the battlefield, so people stopped using suits of armor.
Why not set up a purely defensive missile shield? The bad guys will worry that we will be able to carry out nuclear strikes with impunity, so they will eventually come up with a defensive missile shield too. No more threat of a worldwide nuclear apocalypse, everyone goes home happy.
Heck, maybe defensive weaponry will get so advanced that we have to go back to using swords in battle again. 
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 11:42:52 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
Manimal- I'm dubious about the missile shield because of the fact it has been advertised to us as a way to intercept Iranian "short and medium range missiles". Iran doesn't possess a missile yet that can reach Poland and I don't believe they are even close. I'm not saying it won't happen one day but for the now there is no such thing. The only nation that has missiles that can possibly reach Europe is Russia. Russia knows the rules they aren't a threat with their arsenal. After the Georgia incident Poland and the Czech Republic were very anxious to sign up. What it looks like to me is a leftover cold war something or other. The shield would be better off put in places like Japan and South Korea, the western most aleutian islands, eastern Turkey, Kuwait or Israel - though I believe a nuclear threat to Israel isn't as great as some think simply because they are so small that anyone in the area will have to deal with the fallout. If we're going to use it put it where it will actually be useful.
The advantage of MAD over the missile shield is missiles aren't the only way to deliver a nuclear device. The US for example still deploys B-52s, the B-1 and the Russians the TU-160 that can deploy nuclear missiles. It can be delivered by a boat in a harbor or a plane kamikaze style as happened on 9/11. If the Iranians or the North Koreans want to load up a jumbo jet with a nuclear device there is nothing that can stop it if it gets over whatever territory it wants to go. I would expect some rogue terrorist type to do this before an actual nation. There are also nuclear artillery shells and nuclear torpedos that can be loaded on military aircraft. The shield isn't going to be much use against an entity that we would put on the top of the most likely to nuke us list. When looking at the shield it looks like an anti-Kremlin tactic more than anything.
As for what will happen when Bush is gone - back on the topic. I believe that we have disrupted AQ's organization. They have funneled an awful lot of energy into Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe our diligence to this point would have disrupted them enough that they aren't capable of any immediate major attack. I will be very disappointed in our efforts the last 6 years if the fears of some on this thread come true. I would like to think that we did a better job than that.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/21/2008 7:41:39 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3156
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
we won't practice bold military strategy world-wide.
In other words appeasement.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/21/2008 8:08:41 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 2029
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
quote:
we won't practice bold military strategy world-wide.
In other words appeasement.
No. It's not the same thing.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/22/2008 2:45:50 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
quote:
we won't practice bold military strategy world-wide.
In other words appeasement.
No. It's not the same thing.
-Dan.
You are right, but then it's not the same thing as anything else either! It's merely a democraticunderground talking point phrase that has no meaning except to attach to Bush as another synonym for "imperialism".
I've gotten quite used to taopoohbear's straw man/non sequitor silly comments.
He realizes the best way to not get cornered in a conversation of reason is to say something totally ambiguous and unrelated.
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
