what is the point?

[eakers]

im watching cnn and im seeing that the us is backing out of the anti balstic missile treaty

whats the point of a treaty if you can just back out whenever you want?

*kat. <-- not happy about this.

 

[xeno2060]

Poor eakers
Mutually asured destuction is something that the US thinks it can avoid
by developing a anti-ballistic missile defence system, therefore they feel that an anti-ballistic missile treaty is not in the best interest of US Oil companies that own all of the arospace industry and then they can't make more money on a weapons system that probably already exists...

 

[CraigRT]

Think of how much it would suck if you COULDN'T back out though... I don't really see any major issue with the fact that u can back out.. in this particular case, maybe.. but not being able to backout as a whole.. argh, i can't word today.......

 

[jjones]

this treaty is out-dated and was just an appeasement to the Soviets in the first place. it should have been dumped years ago. also, treaties are not necessarily permanent, they stay in place as long as both sides agree.

 

[cavingjan]

That treaty was in dire need of a rewrite. Besides the recently announced reduction in missiles in the US was a show of good faith.

 

[grr8scott]

They arent just "getting out of it" they are more like giving notice. WIth everything that has gone on the past few months, we need to be prepared for what may come. As with most contracts, there is a way to get out of it, with notice. and i believe the notice here is 6 months. Someone please correct me if i mis stated anythign here..

 

[bozo1]

The soviet union doesn't exist anymore. Nuff said

 

[GuySmiley]

they are making the rockets again? i remember being very afraid when U.S. was making war on USSR. Even in Kazakhstan, where we make only goats, not missiles, they want to bomb us. but america is our friend now, and i like americans. i do not know if it is a good thing , to not have a treaty saying no one will make the bombs. it is very confusing, i must go think now.

 

[gopunk]

yea i saw this on drudge the other day.... i figure, if russia doesn't worry about this, i see no reason why i should.

 

[ShadowHunter]

<< *kat. <-- not happy about this. >>



In a few words, get over it. I dont mean to be an ass (but I prolly am anyway), but the treaty is old and outdated; doesn't do anything but hinder our defense system's progress.

 

[vash]

That 1972 treaty was at the height of our tension with missles.

Today is a different story. There are threats that aren't as easily labeled as they were back then and the USSR doesn't even exist anymore.

I, for one, would like to see us not arming ourselves more, but with the 9/11 attack, we are still vulnerable to foreign assaults.

vash

 

[b0mbrman]

<< yea i saw this on drudge the other day.... i figure, if russia doesn't worry about this, i see no reason why i should. >>



Agreed.

I think the only people making a big deal of it are the ones looking for reasons to hate the US

 

[Chubs]

You are all missing the point by a mile. Russia can now freely follow our "lead" and unilaterally decide to back out of other treaties that were designed to limit proliferation of weapons and information on how to build them. These groups of treaties effectively ended the nuclear arms race (proven by the fact stockpiles have continued to decrease).

A new kind of arms race is likely to begin. If a country outside of the US wants to be able to protect itself they'll need to develop new weapons to foil any kind of missile shield. Which could mean smaller, more portable, more powerful weapons.

 

[Skoalboy]

Did our Goverment ever get the AMS working correctly, last I heard that every test they have done has missed the missle, I know the Russians had theres working before that treaty went into effect.

 

[jjones]

<<
You are all missing the point by a mile. Russia can now freely follow our "lead" and unilaterally decide to back out of other treaties that were designed to limit proliferation of weapons and information on how to build them. These groups of treaties effectively ended the nuclear arms race (proven by the fact stockpiles have continued to decrease).

A new kind of arms race is likely to begin. If a country outside of the US wants to be able to protect itself they'll need to develop new weapons to foil any kind of missile shield. Which could mean smaller, more portable, more powerful weapons.
>>


in regards to russia there is still the economic situation they have to deal with which lost them the cold war to begin with. no worries there about proliferation.

regarding new weapons, you will not stop the march of time nor technology. people will always be building a better mousetrap.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

<< You are all missing the point by a mile. Russia can now freely follow our "lead" and unilaterally decide to back out of other treaties that were designed to limit proliferation of weapons and information on how to build them. These groups of treaties effectively ended the nuclear arms race (proven by the fact stockpiles have continued to decrease).

A new kind of arms race is likely to begin. If a country outside of the US wants to be able to protect itself they'll need to develop new weapons to foil any kind of missile shield. Which could mean smaller, more portable, more powerful weapons. >>



What do you mean by even "smaller, more portable, more powerful weapons"? They already exist. Making an anti-missile defence system makes IBCMs obsolete. One less threat in this world. Suitcase nukes are not new.

 

[thomsbrain]

Reagan showed the Bush family "Star Wars: A New Hope" before he left office, and poor Bush was still a drunk then, so he actually believed the old man with Altzheimer's (or however you spell it) was telling the truth.
"Yeah, we can use our light sabers and the force to stop the evil empire!"