Current Nuclear Weapons Development

I can't even stand those guys anymore. They banned me from commenting because they didn't like my opinions of some of their "ideas". ;) They're about as far left as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and POGO. I question whether there's a functioning brain amongst them. Land Based ICBMs are such a terrible idea that both China and Russia have TWO of them in production.
 
sferrin said:
I can't even stand those guys anymore. They banned me from commenting because they didn't like my opinions of some of their "ideas". ;) They're about as far left as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and POGO. I question whether there's a functioning brain amongst them. Land Based ICBMs are such a terrible idea that both China and Russia have TWO of them in production.
Click to expand...
Only our weapons are dangerous haven’t you been paying attention the last 40 years!! :rolleyes:
 
The legislation mentioned in this article has caused so much delay in important national security programs. Should be repealed immediately.

Of course they will judge shop and get our weapon’s modernization programs delayed. What a joke.

https://apnews.com/1a10f5c2ddc5db7a...il&utm_term=0_e842221dc2-d098098f60-222493533
Nuclear watchdogs, government accountability advocates and other critics argue that the decision to ramp up production of plutonium skirts requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and a decades-old court order that included a mandate for an environmental review when the federal government embarked on plans to boost production to more than 80 of the nuclear cores a year.
 
Reciprocity does not need a treaty. If Russia dismantled its' nuclear production capacity to match what the US has already done (Hanford, Savannah, Amarillo, etc) that would do a lot more than invoking catechism to make the case for more treaties. Having an internal anti nuclear movement (genuine) as well supported and vociferous as in the West would also make the idea more palatable.
 
Treaties can be an effective form of asymmetric warfare when one side can cheat knowing it can rely on "the usual" pressure groups who are not merely indifferent to the cheating but even hostile to raising the issue.
 
fredymac said:
Treaties can be an effective form of asymmetric warfare when one side can cheat knowing it can rely on "the usual" pressure groups who are not merely indifferent to the cheating but even hostile to raising the issue.
Click to expand...

The current US leadership are themselves are not in a particular place of credibility when it comes to maintaining treaties and other international commitments.
Treaties also help frame, and provided mechanisms for detecting and limiting, cheating.
Which is particularly important if, like any democratic country, you need to build consensus for moving in any particular policy direction (especially for those that demand so much resources and the opportunity costs that come with that).
And trying to imply that “pressure groups” that happen not to share your views are somehow traitorous is often seen on this forum but no less dishonest and despicable for it.
And completely counterproductive to what you should be trying to do which is to try to convince other people, instead of alienating them.
 
kaiserd said:
The current US leadership are themselves are not in a particular place of credibility when it comes to maintaining treaties and other international commitments.
Treaties also help frame, and provided mechanisms for detecting and limiting, cheating.
Which is particularly important if, like any democratic country, you need to build consensus for moving in any particular policy direction (especially for those that demand so much resources and the opportunity costs that come with that).
And trying to imply that “pressure groups” that happen not to share your views are somehow traitorous is often seen on this forum but no less dishonest and despicable for it.
And completely counterproductive to what you should be trying to do which is to try to convince other people, instead of alienating them.
Click to expand...


Terminating treaties does not equal cheating on treaties. Terminating treaties where cheating invalidates them is the corrective action. Hard to grasp?

Treaties between democratic countries and non democratic countries require broad consensus or the non democratic country can use the internal opposition to cover for their violations. Where is your counterpart in Russia?

A better description of despicable is substituting "traitorous" for opposition and them condemning the substitution.

Your last sentence proves again that you will never be accused of self awareness.
 
Not honouring your commitments is still not honouring your commitments and does not help you when you are looking to hold others to theirs.
Are you arguing for the US never entering into any international agreements ever again (and exiting all current agreements) or abandoning democracy and forcing your views on those that disagree with you? Because those extremes are the only choices that make any sense per your argument.
Especially weird is that you appear to envy Putin’s Russia’s lack of freedom; I understand that is a common theme on the far-right.
Your comments re: substituting words doesn’t make any apparent sense; you are actively looking to delegitimise any one who doesn’t 100 percent agree with you on this topic.
And to be clear I am not looking to convince you or any of your hard-core fellow travellers (many of whom may not be far-right); I am intentionally highlighting the inherent dishonesty and purposefully self-defeating nature of your argument for those that may otherwise be deceived by it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom