Post #2,880
7/26/01 11:13:46 AM
|
I dunno
| 1 | not familiar with | | | | 2) | a) Congress wouldn't ratify it anyway. | | b) Interestingly enough, now that the US is out of the picture, the other countries made changes to Kyoto that we pushed for. Appears to me like the other countries didn't want to work with us. | | c) as an individual, you CAN make a difference - ie. I use a manual [link|http://www.reelin.com/|Reel Mower] for mowing my yard. No gas usage, no pollution, no noise. Other things come to mind like gas-electric hybrid cars. | | | | 3) | I'm all for a defensive weapons race, certainly much better than an offensive weapons race. | | | | 4) | haven't made up my mind on this - I'm sceptical that anything could be done to inforce a ban. |
I do find it interesting that the other countries love to harp "we don't need the USA", and yet they get so upset when we're not "standing with them". Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #2,889
7/26/01 11:38:13 AM
|
I could understand it if...
...he actually offered any alternatives at all to any of the above stated problems. Instead, he has basically taken the ball and gone home, and refused to even offer any alternatives in most cases.
Korea: Trust me, it's Bad. "Rogue" state that would love to get it's hands on a nuke or 15, backed by China, with massive starvation problems exacerbated by a very corrupt central government with a strong army. Not a real threat to the U.S. in the sense of being able to directly attack us, but if they go wild, they could screw up Asia before we could do much about it. Note that they have theatre missile capacity - they launched a missile over Japan not too long ago. Combine that with several suspected nuke programs, and they look a lot more scary than Iraq ever did. That, and China backs them.
Defensive Arms Race: I'd love it too - but I'm not worried that it will spark a defensive arms race - I'm worried it will spark an OFFENSIVE arms race, as U.S. detractors attempt to invent decoy equipment that can evade our defensive measures.
Kyoto: It's okay to disagree with people. It's ok to admit that Congress might not even pass it. It's not okay to throw everything out the window because your oil buddies don't want it to happen, which is pretty much the noise that's been coming out of the White House, as opposed to any serious conversation on the issue. I'm doing what I can too - my next car will be a Toyota Prius, hell, we might even get two. (BTW, I test-drove one - nice car! A little noisy at high speeds, but there are no power issues at all with them.) When I finally get a lawn, I will use a manual mower, not electric or gas. Good exercise, too.
Bacteriological Warfare: You're right, it's probably not enforceable. It's also better than nothing IMO - it's a stepping stone to the next agreement which will go further, etc.
What I'm upset about is that Shrub isn't just backing away - he's actively throwing stuff out the window and not offering anything in it's place.
|
Post #2,893
7/26/01 11:47:16 AM
|
Not quite
At least on the Bact. Warefare issued, they've promised to present an alterantive proposal by September or October
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #3,019
7/30/01 9:32:50 AM
|
In other words...
..."This hyar AdminisSTRAYshun don't want no treety's with them 'yar Yero-PEONs! Whazzat? We gotta have one?!? Waal, Hokay, we'll come up with are OWN "plan" in a cuppla months or so. Now shaddup 'n git me a brandy!
Basically, you have confirmed exactly what Inthane said: Scrap what's out there and don't have an alternative (until the polls say we gotta, and after we "confer" with our "benefactors"...er, high-level experts, at Exxon...).
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #3,039
7/30/01 11:25:07 AM
|
Of course
Scrap what's out there...
If what's out there is worse then useless, sure
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #2,891
7/26/01 11:44:06 AM
|
Exactly why...
4) haven't made up my mind on this - I'm sceptical that anything could be done to inforce a ban.
That's why the US backed off on this one. Basically, Iraq showed that even with pretty much free run of a country and surpise inspections, it's almost impossible to nail someone building this kinda stuff if they're trying to do it in secret. We never got anything good on Iraq until a defector actually showed us where the stuff was.
The impossibility of effective enforcement, coupled with the fact that attempted enforcement would open up Pharma's and other companies to basically giving away intellectual property, made this deal a bad treaty to begin with.
Keep in mind that this 'treaty' was basically put together by the guy leading the effort for the treaty after 7 years of negotiations had not gotten very far
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #2,906
7/27/01 2:39:21 AM
|
NMD == waste of money.
The first nuke bound for the USA will prolly arrive in a backpack or suitcase.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
|
Post #2,919
7/27/01 8:36:08 AM
|
That and history has shown that defensive arms races
never work. Both World Wars involved defensive arms races...and the countries that relied on them both lost.
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #2,936
7/27/01 10:58:00 AM
|
What would you have said in the 30s? 50s?
Was the atomic bomb a waste of money? (Heisenberg about single-handedly convinced the Nazis it was, and he should be canonized for that).
Was the space program a waste of money?
Airplanes?
Telephones?
Every new tech, every new system has always had someone saying exactly that. "Its a waste of money, it'll never work, why bother".
And giving up because a solitary bomb might be carried in, well, that's true enough. Are you going to talk the RN into stopping patrolling their bases, cause, after all, someone could walk up to the base, and detonate one, so it would be pointless?
So *in that case*, its pointless. But since, by definition, you don't know what case is about to come up.. be prepared for as much as you can.
Maybe intercepting ballistic missiles is almost impossible with other projectiles. (I don't think it is, but we'll see).
BTW, the RN *has* an excellent anti-missile system. (Seawolf?). The write ups on it I've seen all said to the effect of ~"If this were made and sold by the US, it would be standard equipment for every Western country".
Which leads me to believe that its not an impossible thing to do. And being prepared for one eventuality is a good thing.
Addison
|
Post #3,081
7/30/01 3:26:54 PM
|
Question...
BTW, the RN *has* an excellent anti-missile system. (Seawolf?). The write ups on it I've seen all said to the effect of ~"If this were made and sold by the US, it would be standard equipment for every Western country".
This anti-missile system, protects the ship, right? Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #3,088
7/30/01 3:57:04 PM
|
Re: Question...
Sorry. Its not ballistic missile defense but a localized anti-missile defense. Ship, task force, etc. I think they've also now got a land-based version for base defense (which would be like the Patriot) (Which was cancelled by President Carter because it had the potential to be ABM) (In theory).
Addison
|
Post #3,116
7/30/01 7:01:55 PM
|
The same Patriot missile system used in Desert Storm?
and which also had a success factor of 1% (or something like that)?
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #3,120
7/30/01 7:23:35 PM
|
The very same.
But DS wasn't a fair comparison... City defense wasn't what it was built for.
So I don't know how effective it was, or would have been. Personally, I thought it was rather ineffective. But its use in DS was political, without regard for its use.
(remember, it was *designed* as anti-aircraft, and is good enough to - sometimes - catch semi-ballistic missiles.)
Addison
|
