Pact to cut US-Russia nukes; signing in 2 weeks

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Mar 24, 2010.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    In the world of military funding, the next decade is almost irrelevant.

    This is exactly the logic I'm talking about - and the reason Clinton put us in the capability hole we are in. You're focusing on the LAST war. But you're not alone. You have very good, and very powerful, company.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 25, 2010
    #11
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Watch and learn. The accident rates of early jets and early biplanes before them was also high. If you think technology stands still, you're behind already. We are spending billions on it.
     
    red55, Mar 26, 2010
    #12
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    What in the world are you talking about? :huh:

    Now, you've really lost me. First the next decade is irrelevant and now the last decade is irrelevant. :insane:

    Look, the post-cold-war changes came from the Pentagon, with support from all presidents and with residence from Congress trying to protect pet weapons made in their state or local bases. You can't make a case for Clinton hurting our capability one bit. Go ahead and try.

    The whole idea of the changes was to get out of the heavy Euro-War profile and evolve into a global intervention profile more suitable for 21st century warfare. That has been going on steadily since 1990. It has improved our capability, not hurt it.
     
    red55, Mar 26, 2010
    #13
  4. TheDude

    TheDude I'm calmer than you.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    717
    Doubt we will ever reduce our warheads below a capability to whup their ass ten times over. Nor will Russia. Building as many as we did had their purpose(contributing to their fall), but maintenance is expensive. Not all nucs sit on a shelf like a can of peas, and the maintenance capabilities of the Russians has degraded severely since the fall of the soviet union. No reason to increase our chances of one launching because they are still using some computers from radio shack, circa 1978.

    I would prefer to see the money saved(if any) be spent elsewhere like intelligence. Besides our delivery systems will no doubt continue to be revamped and improved. Giving up nucs would be stupid, but reducing their levels is good and should not hurt us at all.

    Obama managed to do something right, imo.
     
    TheDude, Mar 26, 2010
    #14
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    the actual weapon reduction is not significant, this is just a way to agree with and have dialogues with russia, which is good.
     
    martin, Mar 26, 2010
    #15
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Actually both are significant and good.
     
    red55, Mar 26, 2010
    #16
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Sourdoughman, Apr 9, 2010
    #17
  8. Indiana Tiger

    Indiana Tiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    26
    Indiana Tiger, Apr 9, 2010
    #18
  9. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Sourdoughman, Apr 9, 2010
    #19
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page