• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Nukes for hamburger meat....

E

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
"just prohibitively expensive to create an effective and reliable system against ICBM's"
I disagree with that, if the goal is shooting down up to a "few" missiles.

"there is very little 'linkage' to other issues."

Then why do something that benefits them more than us? It will be seen as rewarding their "bad behavior," or probably more accurately "not punishing them for their bad behavior."
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
exhelodrvr said:
I disagree with that, if the goal is shooting down up to a "few" missiles.
Click to expand...

That is where is starts to get fuzzy, how many is a few?

exhelodrvr said:
Then why do something that benefits them more than us? It will be seen as rewarding their "bad behavior," or probably more accurately "not punishing them for their bad behavior."
Click to expand...

This agreement will reap big benefits for us as well. We have to 'recapitalize' our nuke forces as well sooner or later. Everything from our warheads to our delievery systems are getting older, the vast majority are of late 80's vintage, and it will cost increasing amounts to continue to keep them viable. It is not pocket change, it is actually estimated to be a very large amount, and if we can decrease costs on our end while maintaining a viable nuclear force, which even the low numbers discussed will allow us to do, is a really good thing when there are more pressing defense budget priorities.

That is all in addition to the massive amount of intel and hard data that we get solely because of the treaty that I pointed out before. If START goes away, so does a lot of that intel and data. Every single pundit that has criticized the negotiations has failed to mention that part. If they have no knowledge of that portion of the treaty then it exemplifies how little they really know.

Quit thinking it is a one way street, it is very much a two way one that benefits both sides in a big way.
 
E

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
Flash said:
Quit thinking it is a one way street, it is very much a two way one that benefits both sides in a big way.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a one-way street, I just think it benefits them significantly more than us at this point which is why I think it should be tied to other issues.

"Few"? I would say in the range of several (3-5) at once. That would significantly limit the threat from the Iran's and NoKor's.
 
J

Jynx

*Placeholder*
Contributor
LazersGoPEWPEW said:
Perhaps but he definitely took a look on the way around.
Click to expand...

C'mon, like you wouldn't? Look at that thing!

HAL Pilot said:
Yeah and that was mayonnaise and not protein on Monica's dress. :sleep_125 :D
Click to expand...

I still can't believe she wasn't embarrassed to admit to keeping the dress. What kinda nasty skank wouldn't make a bee line for the dry cleaners or throw out the dress asap?

How again do these things relate to nukes/Russian relations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top