If Bush had let the program die instead of trying to breathe new life into it, and nudge it along via treaties to set launch sites in Eastern Europe, Russia wouldn't feel rattled (or more likely, just irritated) enough to talk about putting missiles into Cuba or Venezuela.
I know what star wars was. I thought you were referring to the original, space-based operation.
If Bush had let the program die instead of trying to breathe new life into it, and nudge it along via treaties to set launch sites in Eastern Europe, Russia wouldn't feel rattled (or more likely, just irritated) enough to talk about putting missiles into Cuba or Venezuela.
I know what star wars was. I thought you were referring to the original, space-based operation.
It's got a different name now.
Same here. Star wars was Reagan's mind game with the Russians, so that served its purpose quite well.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
Not to drag this too far off topic but the MDA funding for research into 'star wars' space elements still exists. But it still existed under the Clinton administration when the SDI morphed into BMDO. Also, Obama supports the missile defense in East Europe.
Secondly, attributing Russia's aggressiveness simply to Bush stepping on their toes is an over-simplification. We have a serious problem growing in Russia and it started prior to the negotiation between the U.S. and Poland. Russia was actually "down" with this missile net if the U.S. agreed to rent a Russian-owned site or if the U.S. expanded the program to include Russia.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz wrote:Secondly, attributing Russia's aggressiveness simply to Bush stepping on their toes is an over-simplification. We have a serious problem growing in Russia and it started prior to the negotiation between the U.S. and Poland. Russia was actually "down" with this missile net if the U.S. agreed to rent a Russian-owned site or if the U.S. expanded the program to include Russia.
It may be an over-simplification (I do try to economize sometimes in these posts) but it is fair to say that if the US hadn't been actively looking to create a missile defense and station them in the former Soviet bloc, Russia would not feel the need, or even urge, to drop silos into our hemisphere.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
thedude wrote:Same here. Star wars was Reagan's mind game with the Russians, so that served its purpose quite well.
Reagan getting the Soviets to bankrupt themselves building missiles served its purpose quite well. I don't know how much you could say Star Wars had to do with it.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
It's fair to say that. I am just trying to make the point that it's not as if this base in Poland gives us a strategic advantage over Russia and Russia is responding in turn by gaining a strategic advantage in Cuba and Venezuela. This is much more juvenile.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz wrote:Secondly, attributing Russia's aggressiveness simply to Bush stepping on their toes is an over-simplification. We have a serious problem growing in Russia and it started prior to the negotiation between the U.S. and Poland. Russia was actually "down" with this missile net if the U.S. agreed to rent a Russian-owned site or if the U.S. expanded the program to include Russia.
It may be an over-simplification (I do try to economize sometimes in these posts) but it is fair to say that if the US hadn't been actively looking to create a missile defense and station them in the former Soviet bloc, Russia would not feel the need, or even urge, to drop silos into our hemisphere.
Still, in an age when weapons can kill millions in a blink of an eye, I not only prefer - but would insist - that our country be on the forefront of preventative measures to keep losses to a minimum. Now, you might be right that a missile defense system upset the balance of power. A viable argument would be that the U.S., or NATO, should not employ missile defenses unilaterally. However, I cannot fathom a good reason to stop researching the defense. Its potential to save lives simply cannot be understated.
Last edited by JTWood on Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amazinz wrote:It's fair to say that. I am just trying to make the point that it's not as if this base in Poland gives us a strategic advantage over Russia and Russia is responding in turn by gaining a strategic advantage in Cuba and Venezuela. This is much more juvenile.
Absolutely. From what I read about the system a year or so ago, even if it became operational it would be completely incapable of stopping a full-blown Russian nuclear assault. It could handle maybe a few launches, but not the thousands that Russia has at its disposal. And I tried to convey that by caveating that this was more likely the result of Russian irritation than the result of a Russian feeling of anxiety. More like you peed in my cup, now I'm going to pee in yours.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Amazinz wrote:Secondly, attributing Russia's aggressiveness simply to Bush stepping on their toes is an over-simplification. We have a serious problem growing in Russia and it started prior to the negotiation between the U.S. and Poland. Russia was actually "down" with this missile net if the U.S. agreed to rent a Russian-owned site or if the U.S. expanded the program to include Russia.
It may be an over-simplification (I do try to economize sometimes in these posts) but it is fair to say that if the US hadn't been actively looking to create a missile defense and station them in the former Soviet bloc, Russia would not feel the need, or even urge, to drop silos into our hemisphere.
Still, in an age when weapons can kill millions in a blink of an eye, I not only prefer - but would insist - that our country be on the forefront of preventative measures to keep losses to a minimum. Now, you might be right that a missile defense system upset the balance of power. A viable argument would be that the U.S., or NATO, should not employ missile defenses unilaterally. However, I cannot fathom a good reason to stop researching the defense. It's potential to save lives simply cannot be understated.
I think you mean overstated, but actually, I think it can.
As I got into with someone else in a different post, governments should be in the business of social maximization. And the existence of any given doomsday scenario only necessitates a response if: P * L > P * L of the other available programs where P = the probability of an event and L = the loss if said event was to ever occur. With a nuclear strike, you have a large L, but you have to examine the P alongside the other things that a government could do with the same money before you declare that this program must happen.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias wrote:but you have to examine the P alongside the other things that a government could do with the same money before you declare that this program must happen.
How does this take into account the actions and motives of other actors (states)?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by JTWood » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:24 pm 
