Quote:
|
Russia has successfully tested a stealth missile able to penetrate the US defence system being built in Poland
|
First you people claim that the Missile Defense System is just a pretext for an OFFENSIVE missile system on Russia's borders.
You base this claim on the "fact" that missile defense doesnt work...yet it seems to work well enough that Russia feels it needs to develop a missile specifically to counter...a system that doesnt work?
Please make up your minds, heh heh
Quote:
|
But first you need to borrow money from Communist China for whatever you wish to do...
|
We have the largest GDP in the world by a large margin. We aren't a credit risk.
Quote:
|
Yanks! Antimissile defense will not help!
|
It didn't help
before...that was what we have been trying to tell you from the beginning! heh heh
Russia has
THOUSANDS of warheads...ten interceptor missiles are not going to stop thousands of warheads. Thats what we have been telling you from the beginning. This stealth missile is a pointless and wasted effort. MDS was never intended to defend against a Russian attack. We already have a defense against Russian attack...it is called
M.A.D.
This "stealth" missile is useless, even assuming it works exactly as claimed. Because it will not defend Russia against a counterstrike, and the threat of M.A.D. is the
whole reason Russia will never attack the US with nukes.
If Russia wants to engage in this pointless ego stroking, hey, far be it from me to stop them. They can waste as much money as they want. Their "threat" to us is exactly the same as it was before. Nothing changed.
Quote:
|
Once they are over the US, it's too late. I have to assume that somewhere in Alaska and Canada there will be other missiles, as well as the west coast of the US, the pacific islands and Japan.
|
Yeah, there are mid and terminal phase missile sites in Alaska for sure.
Quote:
|
Of course if the purpose of the shield is as stated, to stop missiles from Rogue nations, it doesn't matter what Russia develops. Well, it means less cash for Russia.
|
Exactly...we have been telling them all along that the MDS was never aimed at Russia anyway. Why would we care if Russia developed a way to defeat a system that was never intended as a defense against them anyway?
Quote:
|
Very interesting in that the US unilaterally withdrew from this treaty. Since the treaty was approved by the Senate then the Senate would have to vote on ending the treaty and as noted in Wikipedia President Bush without Senate authorization withdrew from the ABM treaty. The President does not have this authority and is in violation of the Constitution in doing so. Any treaties or modifications to them require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate.
|
It would depend on the wording of the treaty. The senate may have ceded authority to the President on this matter (which they did with the declaration of was powers in Iraq as well).
Is it Constitutional to do so? The Supreme Court, by their inaction, seems to say "yes". And they are the final authority.