This can't be a real political ad... can it?

#2
#2
Barack, I beg you, please run this ad during the general election campaign.
 
#3
#3
OMG, that is HILARIOUS! And terribly frightening at the same time. He should have added that he was working on creating a very large bulls eye on our country that could be seen from space.
 
#4
#4
Well...I can't say that taking our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and cutting back investments in missile defense systems that won't work when really needed sound all that bad to me. Some of the other aspects of defense spending cuts do leave you a little nervous though....

Also, does he not include nuclear energy in future energy portfolios...because I'm not sure how long we can go without enriching more fissile material if we want to roll out nuclear energy to be a larger part of our infrastructure...
 
#5
#5
Space is already weaponized. The Chineese shot down a satellite to show off their technology and the US responded in kind. I'm starting to get some really bad Nostradomean-type bad vibes.
 
#6
#6
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Space is already weaponized. The Chineese shot down a satellite to show off their technology and the US responded in kind. I'm starting to get some really bad Nostradomean-type bad vibes.
Click to expand...

I think that weaponization of space in political speak these days is limited to Reagan's "no nuclear weapons in space" ... but expanding it to include other forms of weapons such as lasers from space....

Shooting down satellites is just frosting....
 
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
Well...I can't say that taking our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and cutting back investments in missile defense systems that won't work when really needed sound all that bad to me. Some of the other aspects of defense spending cuts do leave you a little nervous though....
Click to expand...

What??????

TennTradition said:
Also, does he not include nuclear energy in future energy portfolios...because I'm not sure how long we can go without enriching more fissile material if we want to roll out nuclear energy to be a larger part of our infrastructure...
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that as well
 
#8
#8
GAVol said:
Barack, I beg you, please run this ad during the general election campaign.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this was an example of somebody using some clever editing or camera magic like they used in Forrest Gump where they had all of these historical characters carrying on conversations with Gump. I figured somebody was putting words in his mouth and synched it with his lips moving. No way he actually made an ad like this.

This has to be a fake/parody.
 
#10
#10
MontereyVol said:
What??????



I was wondering about that as well
Click to expand...

It's going to take a lot of experimental flight data with many decoys to sell me on the fact that we can do it when it counts. So far, we use extremely limited decoy counts (such as 1 ... or none if we are intercepting with the sun behind the target) in our integrated flight tests. The problem is that I don't think that the problem can be overcome without using nuclear weapons (which doesn't seem enticing) or using 30 or more interceptors per MIRV ... which doesn't seem enticing either.

If we want to continue funding, I'll sit down and discuss that. But, WE SHOULD NOT be rolling these systems out until they work....that just seems dangerous.

PS...don't forget to call me when you go ship hunting next :) ....
 
#11
#11
Rasputin_Vol said:
I was thinking this was an example of somebody using some clever editing or camera magic like they used in Forrest Gump where they had all of these historical characters carrying on conversations with Gump. I figured somebody was putting words in his mouth and synched it with his lips moving. No way he actually made an ad like this.

This has to be a fake/parody.
Click to expand...

The full version of that has him saying "Hell yeah, I am an F*ing Muslim". :eek:lol:
 
#12
#12
I don't feel like the system has to be completely tested prior to use. The atom bomb was tested once prior to being dropped on Japan, twice. Tanks were barely tested prior to being placed on the field of battle in WWI. The same can be said for the earliest planes that were used to drop bombs and/or dogfight. All crude in their early phases, yet the benefits all outweighed any costs due to "danger" in each situation (feel free to add assault rifles, repeating rifles, water cooled machine guns, or basically any other first generation innovation in warfare to the list.)
 
#14
#14
therealUT said:
I don't feel like the system has to be completely tested prior to use. The atom bomb was tested once prior to being dropped on Japan, twice. Tanks were barely tested prior to being placed on the field of battle in WWI. The same can be said for the earliest planes that were used to drop bombs and/or dogfight. All crude in their early phases, yet the benefits all outweighed any costs due to "danger" in each situation (feel free to add assault rifles, repeating rifles, water cooled machine guns, or basically any other first generation innovation in warfare to the list.)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you agree that these are offensive weapons - if they don't work, then your attack fails. Contrast that against a defense system. If we deploy a missile defense system that doesn't work, then we upset the balance of MAD (or at least present the appearance of an imbalance) with no strategic advantage gained. I find it dangerous to go about deploying a system for our "protection" (and causing significant problems with our allies - and our former enemies) when all we have really done to date is show that it can't actually protect us.

Furthermore, it is reckless to say that it doesn't have capabilities that it does have (like having interceptors that are able to catch up to Russian missiles). I just really don't like how the MDA does business.

With that said, I do agree with the basic point that a military system shouldn't have to be proven to be 100% effective before being deployed. However, this is one system where if ineffective, the consequences are extreme. The ultimate question is are we safer then with it or with out it. I haven't answered that fully yet - but I can't see how it makes us safer right now.
 
#15
#15
The reason that a defense system upsets the rest of the world is because it effectively gets rid of "game theory" for the US.

However, I would not, in any way whatsoever, say that we are less safe if we deploy the system. Even if it does not work, then we are still just as safe as we are now.
 
#16
#16
if it weren't a valid threat to Putinland's relative military equality, he wouldn't be rattling his sabres about it.
 
#17
#17
I was waiting for him to reach up and pull his mask off and it'd be Chavez or Amajedadouchebag. This has got to be fake.
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
if it weren't a valid threat to Putinland's relative military equality, he wouldn't be rattling his sabres about it.
Click to expand...

I think that basic problem is the impending arm's race ... it's something for them to get fired up about...even it they aren't all that worried about it.
 
#20
#20
therealUT said:
The reason that a defense system upsets the rest of the world is because it effectively gets rid of "game theory" for the US.

However, I would not, in any way whatsoever, say that we are less safe if we deploy the system. Even if it does not work, then we are still just as safe as we are now.
Click to expand...

Well..like I said...I'm ready to accept it doesn't make us any more safe...I haven't come to a conclusion about less safe. If the Russians truly did believe it worked and were interested in attacking us, the end result would be even more warheads hitting us than before ... but with nukes... more warheads doesn't really mean all that much. The damage would be done with just a few on major cities - we would internally take care of the rest for them I would say. So, I haven't really accepted that it makes us less safe either. The reason I won't say that it definitely doesn't is because it makes it hard to measure the impacts of things like this on future diplomatic efforts...which while that might not pertain to safety directly, it could play into future aggressive decisions indirectly.

I guess I'm neutral on the safe/less safe issue, but pretty convinced that it is a waste of money and (gasp) political capital to try to deploy it right now.
 
#21
#21
BigPapaVol said:
arms race with Putinland is not a bad thing for the US.
Click to expand...

Well..it could very well be more one-sided. We build thousands of interceptors and they just simply don't dismantle their weapons....

I guess the investment in new interceptors could be a good kick to the economy..but so could investment in new energy systems development.
 
#22
#22
TennTradition said:
Well..like I said...I'm ready to accept it doesn't make us any more safe...I haven't come to a conclusion about less safe. If the Russians truly did believe it worked and were interested in attacking us, the end result would be even more warheads hitting us than before ... but with nukes... more warheads doesn't really mean all that much. The damage would be done with just a few on major cities - we would internally take care of the rest for them I would say. So, I haven't really accepted that it makes us less safe either. The reason I won't say that it definitely doesn't is because it makes it hard to measure the impacts of things like this on future diplomatic efforts...which while that might not pertain to safety directly, it could play into future aggressive decisions indirectly.

I guess I'm neutral on the safe/less safe issue, but pretty convinced that it is a waste of money and (gasp) political capital to try to deploy it right now.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how we're less safe in a situation where the Putins have some shadow of doubt about the mutual assuredness of destruction.
 
#23
#23
TennTradition said:
Well..like I said...I'm ready to accept it doesn't make us any more safe...I haven't come to a conclusion about less safe. If the Russians truly did believe it worked and were interested in attacking us, the end result would be even more warheads hitting us than before ... but with nukes... more warheads doesn't really mean all that much. The damage would be done with just a few on major cities - we would internally take care of the rest for them I would say. So, I haven't really accepted that it makes us less safe either. The reason I won't say that it definitely doesn't is because it makes it hard to measure the impacts of things like this on future diplomatic efforts...which while that might not pertain to safety directly, it could play into future aggressive decisions indirectly.

I guess I'm neutral on the safe/less safe issue, but pretty convinced that it is a waste of money and (gasp) political capital to try to deploy it right now.
Click to expand...
I am going to have to categorically disagree. With or without a defense system, if any country ever decided to attack the US with nuclear, ballistic missiles, they would almost certainly spend as much of their arsenal as they could spare while maintaining enough to attack any of our allies.

No major nuclear power is going to pussy-foot into a nuclear fight.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not sure how we're less safe in a situation where the Putins have some shadow of doubt about the mutual assuredness of destruction.
Click to expand...

Umm...maybe my logic is off, but I would generally say that an imbalance in MAD would lead the Russians to be much less likely to dismantle their remaining weapons. If they feel we are going to defend completely against their remaining arsenal, then they are going to try to keep as many as they can. Because, that is the fundamental problem with our defense shield - it can be easily overcome with numbers. If it is a true imbalance in MAD, then we benefit. However, it it is only a perceived imbalance in MAD - then we have more weapons aimed us and that will hit us than we would have had otherwise. Getting back to my earlier point, though, that might not really make a difference in our overall security, though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top