Time for me to clean the guns....and Go BUSH!!! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
You folks do realize that we have offered to let Russia participate in the design of the shield? Do you realize that we also offered to share the technology, in an effort to make the world safer through defensive weaponry? ------------------
That's right! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
Cold War Pt 2 here we come or I pity the fools who don't team up with the U.S. [This message has been edited by rockHEAD (edited July 16, 2001).]
Only 6 months in office and we've already reversed foreign relations to the 1980's. Imagine what it will be like next year! Bomb shelters? Air raid drills? Woo hoo! ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
You think Russis would learn about alliances by now....Germany anyone? ------------------ How long do I have to endure this ?
Jeff -- do you honestly think that the bitter feelings from the Cold War magically subsided during the Clinton years, and are only now resurfacing?? I know you're smarter than that!!! As for China...why is it that we're expected to bow down to their every wish..but we're not allowed to defend our own nation from missile attack??? This is a country that is outwardly hostile...that is arming up. I don't see how our reaction to them as players on the world scene are uncalled for. ------------------
Damn the Florida Senior Citizens! ------------------ Protrolls.com! "I want to be like Olajon." -Sagana Diop has the right idea... Keep the ???? alive!
I don't remember bomb shelters and air raid drills during the 80's. I think you're talking about the 50's! Duck and cover everyone! ------------------ First the Sopranos and now Eddie Griffin... thank you New Jersey!
Cool...I'm ready to start rounding up commies....and there's no better place to start than right here. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
As for China...why is it that we're expected to bow down to their every wish..but we're not allowed to defend our own nation from missile attack??? This is a country that is outwardly hostile...that is arming up. I don't see how our reaction to them as players on the world scene are uncalled for. Why would you expect China to allow the US to gain the upperhand? Nuclear deterrence works on the concept that neither party is willing to engage in nuclear war because they will destroy themselves. If the US builds this fantasy missile defense, this balance is broken (theoretically). China is now at risk because the US can engage in nuclear war and China cannot respond unless they build a better nuclear arsenal. Put yourself in China's shoes -- and understand that they consider us to be hostile just as we consider them -- and what would you do? I'm not saying defending ourselves is a bad thing, but to blame China for being upset about this is just silly. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I'm not blaming China for being upset...but I do blame people here who claim that because this is upsetting to the Chinese, we shouldn't pursue it as a possible means of defense for millions of Americans in the event of an intentional or unintentional nuclear strike. China is dangerous...they have proven to be so to their neigbors throughout the course of history. Our preparations and defense against that...or the possiblity of any other nation doing the same...may be upsetting to the Chinese...but quite frankly, I could care less! I'm much more concerned with the safety of my child and those I love here than I am the feelings of the Chinese. Sorry for being so insensitive! ------------------
I am not concerned about the feelings of the bees in a beehive, but I don't go poking it with a stick. In my opinion, a missile defense shield will not protect us from a nuclear attack, simply because it is more probable that any attack will be of a terrorist nature, i.e a bomb smuggled into the country. Because of this, I think that the nuclear defense shield is a great big waste of money. Add in the fact that there isnothing to show it owuld work, or that it would cause more problems than solve, and I think its a stupid idea. ------------------ It was the time of the preacher, in the year of '01 Now the preachin' is over, and the lessons begun . . .
shanna, only ONE type of Nuclear deterrence works on the concept that neither party is willing to engage in nuclear war because they will destroy themselves. That is of course, "mutually assured destruction." And really....when you think about it, that isn't "nuclear deterrence," that's nuclear WAR detterence. The concept of mutually assured destruction still maintains that each super-power keeps enough weapons to destroy possible enemies. That worked all fine and dandy when there were only two real players on the field. Now we've got countries all over with nuclear capabilities, and a few that "might" have it. Frankly, that makes me a little uneasy. Especially when some of these countries ideologies are based purely on religion. A weapons system that renders traditional nuclear weapons virtually obsolete is a completely different type of nuclear war deterrence. Sure, there are other ways to launch an attack, like smuggling a warhead across the border...or sneaking one in on a merchant vessel, but I think the precepts of mutually assured destruction still apply. If one country was willing to plan such an attack, I feel confident the rest of the world would attack them. My point is: I'm more comfortable with pissing off China and Russia because we built a system that renders their ICBM's obsolete than I am with the whole concept of mutually assured destruction....especially in this day and age. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Bates Gill, Director, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies: Unfortunately, without better information, our debate on Chinese military power has become overly polarized and simplistic, which in many respects proves beneficial to Beijing. China is able to play off of divisions in our body politic to its advantage in our bilateral relationship. In addition, over-the-top exaggerations of Chinese military modernization merely grant to China precisely the kind of psychological deterrent they could never hope to achieve on the basis of their actual capabilities. I can only imagine that the happiest persons to hear our analysts overly tout the China threat would be the Chinese general staff, students of Sun Zi (Sun Tzu) who are grateful for every psychological advantage they can get. Likewise, dismissing Chinese capabilities in certain well-defined scenarios also plays into Chinese hands. We do not owe China any favors in this regard, and should do all we can to work toward and broaden a well-informed, balanced, appropriately nuanced, and reasoned consensus about Chinese military modernization and its implications for the United States. For most of the history of the People's Republic of China, the purpose of Chinese military power has been largely devoted to basic defense of core national territory and security of inland borders, a goal they have more or less achieved. Over the past five to ten years, with this first purpose behind them, the Chinese military has moved on to a more ambitious goal: full unification of national territory, meaning extension of sovereignty over Taiwan. The Chinese military is now in the earliest stages of formulating a more focused approach to this purpose. Looking out further ahead to the future—perhaps over the next 15 to 20 years—the purpose of the Chinese military will be to extend its power over water to protect natural resources and sea lanes, and provide a greater buffer for the center of economic gravity which stretches along its eastern seaboard. Looking even further ahead, but with outcomes very difficult to predict, it is possible that the purpose of the Chinese military in 25 to 30 years will be to solidify China's position as the preeminent Asian regional power within its sphere of influence. In general, the purpose of Chinese military power is turning slowly away from inland concerns to its north, south and west, to mission requirements to its east and southeast. If we think of the last two thousand years of Chinese history as timeline stretching from one end of a football field to the other, we see that China has been a serious naval player over about two or three yards of that field, and most of that occurred in the early 1400s. The overwhelming concern with inland borders likewise has dominated Chinese military thinking during the 50 years of the PRC. The name of the Chinese navy—the People's Liberation Army Navy—aptly illustrates the subordinate place which men in blue continue to have in the Chinese military. The land-based Army dominates the PLA—in terms of men, materiel, organizational structure, and leadership. A case in point: one of the longest and most ambitious naval expeditions the PRC has ever undertaken was the port visit of two small warships and an oiler across the Pacific to the west coast of the United States in 1997, and that peacetime effort was fraught with difficulties. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom, or Japan—which, as "island" powers, have extraordinary naval, naval air, and marine warfare traditions and hard-won experience—China, as a traditional land power, has much work to do to become a green water, let alone a blue water, force. Moving into this new battle space, China will need to significantly revise the way it conceptualizes warfare, meaning a shift in doctrine. On paper, Chinese strategists appear to recognize this. The Chinese military has moved from the notion of "People's War" in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, to "People's War Under High Tech Conditions" in the 1980s, to the current approach termed "Limited, Local War Under High-Tech Conditions." Chinese strategists see the new environment for warfare to be limited in both time and space, and likely to be fought against technologically sophisticated, "high-tech", and even superior adversaries. Some analysts have shown that Chinese strategists based at their military academies now theorize about a Revolution in Military Affairs. But as Michael Pillsbury has shown in his work, RMA advocates remain outliers in a Chinese military system where the vast majority of both force structure and doctrinal thinking remains wedded to "People's War"-based approaches. Mr. Chairman, no one is more painfully aware of the gap between mission requirements and desired capabilities than the Chinese themselves. Indeed, if it is true that we are in the midst of an RMA, that gap may be widening, not narrowing, for China. Recognizing its weaknesses, China appears to be devoting increased resources not to an "invasion" scenario, but to an "intimidation" and perhaps an "area denial" strategy. In contemplating the Taiwan Strait, the most steadfast military reality is its width: 90 miles of open water. In spite of that persistent tactical conundrum, China has never seriously invested in air or sea lift, amphibious assault capabilities, or credible air superiority assets, let alone the creation of a viable marine corps. It is clear that at this time China does not wish to go toe-to-toe with the U.S. Navy, or even attempt an all-out invasion of the island, which would both be politically and militarily disastrous. From China's decision to build the bomb in the mid-1950s, nuclear weapons have always been seen as a critical trump card to make up for the country's comparatively poor conventional capabilities and prevent what China terms "nuclear blackmail." The situation is no less true today, and China will devote considerable resources to assuring the viability of its nuclear deterrent. After more than 35 years as a nuclear weapons power, China is now in the early stages of deploying a second-generation nuclear force that over the next 10 to 15 years will present the United States with an entirely new strategic situation. Having sensed the vulnerability of its strategic forces for a decade or more, especially with regard to its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), China's ongoing nuclear weapons modernization will build toward a far more qualitatively and quantitatively capable deterrent. China will deploy an all-mobile, solid-fuel missile force, build a larger number of strategic missiles, and these systems could be armed with multiple warheads. Drawing from work I conducted for the National Intelligence Council with a colleague from the RAND Corporation, Dr. James Mulvenon, I would argue that this more modern arsenal will aim for a credible, minimal deterrent vis-à-vis the United States, and a more forward-leaning, counterforce, warfighting posture of "limited deterrence" for its theater systems. ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
The shield is no "fantasy" it is our own business to build it,..and it works evidently if it pisses on some commies and democry-babies then so be it! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
And we won junkyard wars this ear! The victories just keep on coming... China and Russia are doomed to repeat their mistakes. American spirit wins every time.... ------------------ humble, but hungry.
