What, ABM’s? What practical use have we got for those? They were banned by treaty until the W Admin, and for good reason.
When Obama talks of a “nuclear-free world,” that may be vague but at least it’s an improvement over the current Admin, which has given that goal no priority at all. When I hear that I think of (1) arms reduction talks with the remaining nuclear powers (much easier to pull off in a post-Cold-War world); (2) (an issue Kerry talked up in 2004) working hard to acquire/destroy any and all loose nukes that might be floating around in the wake of the Soviet collapse; (3) getting NK and Iran (and Pakistan and Israel – remember Pakistan and Israel?) to see reason and sign on with any general arms-limitation treaty, through a measured carrot-and-stick approach, emphasis on the carrot.
The nuclear arsenal is a waste. It was invented to fight a technically proficient country, Russia. The last damage done to us required box cutters. We can trump that with a trip to the hardware store.
Maintenance of thousands of abombs is a huge waste of money and is stupid. Can you imagine circumstances requiring thousands of nukes. We have pitted ourselves against backward countries with little advanced weaponry. We should start by cutting defense spending by more than half.
You really don’t understand why we might want to intercept or neutralize missiles aimed at us? The most charitable thing I can say is that I don’t believe you.
](Patriot TMD)As I said, I cannot believe Obama is stupid enough to want to discontinue this. If he is, then he is too stupid to be dogcatcher, let alone President. If he is not, well, at least it is still an open question.
Regarding the comment from your mom “I don’t want to discuss politics with you anymore because you’re too good a debater,” I had a similar incident. In the 2004 election cycle, my mom told me she didn’t really want to talk politics with me anymore–but also, interestingly, that she had decided not to vote at all because I had shown her how little she really understood. Mixed feelings ensued.
In an all-out exchange with a major nuclear power, that would be impossible, and any illusions to the contrary would only make both sides’ trigger fingers itchier, which is why the ABM Treaty was negotiated in the first place. As for petty nuclear powers such as NK and (potentially) Iran, what kind of intercontinental-ballistic-missile capacity have they got anyway? And as for terrorists – any nuke they deliver most likely would come by shipping container; can’t stop that with an anti-missile-missile.
Why stop there? Why not build an invisibility machine or a time machine? As long as we’re talking about impossible technologies, let’s really dream big.
Clearly Obama is referring to GMD, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, and other such national missile defense systems (ABL, etc…). I’ve never heard Patriots and the like referred to as “missile defense” even though they are exactly that. While you may think it is debatable, unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM ban treaty to develop systems that have so far been almost universally failures is exactly the type of go-it-alone, idealistic and confrontational foreign policy decision that Obama has rightly criticized.
Umm, why can’t a tac nuke be intercontinental? I thought that ‘tactical’ had more to do with the warhead than the missile. Am I wrong? I don’t see why a low yield bunker buster can’t be on an ICBM, other than perhaps accuracy considerations. I know early ICBMs were designed based around high yield bombs with 30 km or so blast radii, where accuracy wasn’t a major consideration.
Yes, and I was asking about the definition. From BrainGlutton’s cite I still see nothing to dissuade me from the ‘specific meaning’, I took tactical to have.
So put your snark away, you’re shooting blanks. I just made a statement and asked for corroboration.
