• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Crouching Bear, Hidden Dragon?

FreeMason said:
Yes Kelzie, it's part of our Nuclear treaties begun in 1967. Our ICBMs primarily were all built in the 1960s. Minuteman (that famed destroyer of worlds) was first produced (off the top of my head) in 1963.

Here's the kicker though...Russia's never listened to those treaties we signed.

Russia has been developing new Nuclear bombs, and new ICBM systems and are in the post-development stage of a new SATAN-18 derivative.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. We have a thread created specifically for conspiracy theories. Although, if you have proof that Russia is actually building more nuclear bombs, I'm sure our government would love to know. Since they're under the impression that Russia is reducing their numbers.

And seeing as we are now on Minuteman III and our government just gave 6 billion dollars to contine technological advancements, I'm sure they would also be surprised that we have no new technology.
 
Kelzie, can you bring yourself to my level?

Every word I put into a sentence means someting exact.

I said "developing new nuclear warheads".

I did not say making "more nuclear warheads".

Our Nuclear Warheads were all produced in the 1960s.

Theirs are not limited to this, because Russia has developed new Nuclear Warheads to replace old ones throughout the decades.

This is not "secret unbeknowst to all knowledge".

It's common knowledge.

At the same time, Russia today continues to build bunkers below Moscow as part of their Civil defense.

We can't really do anything about this, because they are cooperating on at least reducing the total number of warheads.

We'd have to forsake the entire treaty system if we were to respond to their keeping their systems up to date.
 
FreeMason said:
Kelzie, can you bring yourself to my level?

Every word I put into a sentence means someting exact.

I said "developing new nuclear warheads".

I did not say making "more nuclear warheads".

Our Nuclear Warheads were all produced in the 1960s.

Theirs are not limited to this, because Russia has developed new Nuclear Warheads to replace old ones throughout the decades.

This is not "secret unbeknowst to all knowledge".

It's common knowledge.

At the same time, Russia today continues to build bunkers below Moscow as part of their Civil defense.

We can't really do anything about this, because they are cooperating on at least reducing the total number of warheads.

We'd have to forsake the entire treaty system if we were to respond to their keeping their systems up to date.
Click to expand...

So who cares? What's your point exactly? They are free to upgrade their weapons, just like we are.

Is it really necessary for your posts to be so nasty? Being nice really isn't that hard.
 
Kelzie said:
A much better option is to continue encouraging them like we have. Cut them some slack. They've been a democracy for two decades. Two decades into the US democracy, slavery was rampant and women couldn't vote. Democracy is a process.
Click to expand...

You go girl. Now apply that same thinking to Iraq. And then to the rest of the world.
 
FreeMason said:
Oh and Minuteman III was deployed in 1970 (so my bad on the 1967 figure, off-the-top-of-my-head...you know...)

What was that about keeping our missile systems up to date?

What was this 6 billion for? Developing the Minuteman III?

HMMM?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Minuteman+III+production&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt Yahoo Search on Minuteman III production
Click to expand...


Yeah. You know. New technology. Which you claim we haven't developed except for the guidance system since 1967.

Minuteman modernization continues under an ambitious $6 billion, six-part program intended to improve the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life beyond 2020
Click to expand...
 
teacher said:
You go girl. Now apply that same thinking to Iraq. And then to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Why do people assume that I hate the Iraq War?
 
"Minuteman modernization continues under an ambitious $6 billion, six-part program intended to improve the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life beyond 2020"

Thanks for clarifying.

I was off by 3 years, the Minuteman III as I stated was built in 1970.

But your quote summed it up.

They are improving its guidance (accuracy) and part of the 6 billion goes to repairs. The ICBM itself? Old. Made with 1960s technology, and deployed in 1970.
 
FreeMason said:
"Minuteman modernization continues under an ambitious $6 billion, six-part program intended to improve the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life beyond 2020"

Thanks for clarifying.

I was off by 3 years, the Minuteman III as I stated was built in 1970.

But your quote summed it up.

They are improving its guidance (accuracy) and part of the 6 billion goes to repairs. The ICBM itself? Old. Made with 1960s technology, and deployed in 1970.
Click to expand...

So, like I said. Improving the technology. Unless you have another name for improving a missile's accuracy and reliability?
 
I stated earlier that the only things that are not as old as 1960s in technology, are the guidance systems.

And replacing a 1960s part with a 1990s part, is still a part designed in the 1960s.

It's like building a Saturn-V rocket today...woopie...it's made in 2005, but....what year was it developed? 1959 - 1961.

So is it new technology?
 
FreeMason said:
I stated earlier that the only things that are not as old as 1960s in technology, are the guidance systems.

And replacing a 1960s part with a 1990s part, is still a part designed in the 1960s.

It's like building a Saturn-V rocket today...woopie...it's made in 2005, but....what year was it developed? 1959 - 1961.

So is it new technology?
Click to expand...

Well, if you took a Saturn-V rocket and added new parts to upgrade it, then yes, it would be new technology. Unless you think the military took out it's magic wand and POOF, better accuracy.
 
I said that the only thing that was improved was the guidance systems, this was the first thing I mentioned when informing you that our Nuclear technology is 40 years old.

Thus, you are basically saying what I've already said about 3 times now.
 
FreeMason said:
I said that the only thing that was improved was the guidance systems, this was the first thing I mentioned when informing you that our Nuclear technology is 40 years old.

Thus, you are basically saying what I've already said about 3 times now.
Click to expand...

The guidance system isn't the only thing that influences accuracy or reliability. Try again.
 
That's the only thing they've changed.

They haven't added super cool fins or any other kind of stabalizers, the gyros are the same if they're using those to guide the missile...
 
Kelzie said:
Why do people assume that I hate the Iraq War?
Click to expand...

Blind stereotyping. So, do you think we should be there in Iraq? Should we have went there in the first place? Did Saddam have WMD's. Would you rather have a monkey or a parrot? Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq? Does camel taste like chicken?
 
teacher said:
Blind stereotyping. So, do you think we should be there in Iraq? Should we have went there in the first place? Did Saddam have WMD's. Would you rather have a monkey or a parrot? Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq? Does camel taste like chicken?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Yes. But we went for the wrong reasons.

No.

Parrot. Send my apologies to the monkey army.

A lie would imply deliberate misleading. Since there is not evidence to support that, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he was certainly wrong.

I don't eat animals.
 
teacher said:
Now we are getting somewhere. What reasons should we have went for?
Click to expand...

Humanitarian. If a government is oppressing their people, we should take them out. All of them. Even our allies *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Enough of this turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.
 
FreeMason said:
That's the only thing they've changed.

They haven't added super cool fins or any other kind of stabalizers, the gyros are the same if they're using those to guide the missile...
Click to expand...

Little bit more on our "stagnant" nuclear system technology:

The navy is modernizing the Mk-4/W76 reentry vehicle and replacing the weapon's air-burst fuze with a new ground-burst fuze. The first production unit of the new weapon, designated the Mk-4A/W76-1, is scheduled for delivery in September 2007. About 40 percent of the navy's future stockpile of Mk-4/W76 reentry vehicles (approximately 800) will be converted by 2012. The new fuze will enhance the weapon's lethality and broaden the potential targets that can be attacked by subs equipped with the Mk-4A/W76-1.
Click to expand...

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf05norris

Even before Minuteman III deployment had been completed, plans were afoot to enhance its capability to attack hardened targets, especially missile silos. This was achieved by hardware and software upgrades to the inertial guidance system (making it the INS-20, and by replacing the W-62/Mk-12 warhead/RV combination with the W-78/M-12a. The W-78/Mk-12a had both twice the explosive power of the W-62 (335 Kt) and greater accuracy also. In terms of equivalent megatons the three W-78s provided 128% of the destructive power of the W-56. The INS-20 upgrade was tested in July 1976, and it achieved IOC in July 1979. The W-78 development began in July 1974, with the first production units being built in August 1979, and continued through October 1982.
Click to expand...

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Mmiii.html

Sure just looks like the guidance system, huh?
 
Kelzie said:
Humanitarian. If a government is oppressing their people, we should take them out. All of them. Even our allies *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Enough of this turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Your stock went up. (If that's possible for "The One"). So then I take it, you, like me, feel that with great power comes great responsibility. That it is our moral obligation to help those oppressed that we are able to. Fuc*k the bullshit lefts whining "but we have no right invading a sovereign country". Be careful here, you'll quickly be joining, on this issue, the camp Gunny and I occupy. Few on this site will stand up and say that Iraq was the right thing to do just for humanitarian reasons. I believe my very first post on this site contained the now famous (in my mind) phrase, free the women.

This has the makings of an extended conversation.
 
teacher said:
Excellent. Your stock went up. (If that's possible for "The One"). So then I take it, you, like me, feel that with great power comes great responsibility. That it is our moral obligation to help those oppressed that we are able to. Fuc*k the bullshit lefts whining "but we have no right invading a sovereign country". Be careful here, you'll quickly be joining, on this issue, the camp Gunny and I occupy. Few on this site will stand up and say that Iraq was the right thing to do just for humanitarian reasons. I believe my very first post on this site contained the now famous (in my mind) phrase, free the women.

This has the makings of an extended conversation.
Click to expand...

I think it's a crime that so many people are willing to sit back and let others be abused. If your neighbor beat his wife would you just sit there and listen to her scream? That's crap.
 
Kelzie said:
I think it's a crime that so many people are willing to sit back and let others be abused. If your neighbor beat his wife would you just sit there and listen to her scream? That's crap.
Click to expand...

Actually some girls like to be ruffed up. I love making girls scream in bed, hehe.
 
Kelzie said:
Humanitarian. If a government is oppressing their people, we should take them out. All of them. Even our allies *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Enough of this turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, you and your Wilsonian FDR neo-liberalist/imperialist interventionist stooges are the reason why the majority of the world hates America and are responsible for the death of the Republic, the only time the U.S. should ever go to war is when it is in our national interests and those interests are worth more than the blood of our young men and women in uniform.


Let's get the record straight here I support the war in Iraq because Saddam supported terrorism, the reason why I mention Saddam's genocide is to point out the liberal hypocrisy.

guess who agreed with me:

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington


Thomas Jefferson had this to say about U.S. foreign policy: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."
.
Jefferson also had this to say on entangling relations:

"Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom