Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

But, but, a missile shield is something Bush liked. Therefore it can't be useful or a good idea. At least until the Norks drop a nuke on San Francisco or something.

Yeah let me know when that is a possibility...that is just another myth like Kimmy's 18 holes in one in his first golf game. Just cause they SAY they can hit us with a nuke doesnt mean they can. They havent even proved they can hit SOUTH KOREA with a nuke let alone California.

I am sure the missile shield is also deficit neutral right Bob?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Yeah let me know when that is a possibility...that is just another myth like Kimmy's 18 holes in one in his first golf game. Just cause they SAY they can hit us with a nuke doesnt mean they can. They havent even proved they can hit SOUTH KOREA with a nuke let alone California.

I am sure the missile shield is also deficit neutral right Bob?

The point is, when it's a possibility, and we've squandered time to get a missile shield of some sort in place, it'll be too late. I know we're a nation of wanting things done instantly, but this isn't one that you can snap your fingers and suddenly your protected from a nuke being launched by the latest North Korea nut job.

And from publicly available reports, it's pretty clear North Korea has nukes and can threaten at least South Korea and Japan with them.

http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6155956.ece

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I wouldn't call this 18th century technology:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2564241.stm

Which might, at its peak range, hit one of the Aleutian Isles.

Once again, seeing as we aren't Japan, South Korea, Russia, or China...meh.

The point is, when it's a possibility, and we've squandered time to get a missile shield of some sort in place, it'll be too late. I know we're a nation of wanting things done instantly, but this isn't one that you can snap your fingers and suddenly your protected from a nuke being launched by the latest North Korea nut job.

And from publicly available reports, it's pretty clear North Korea has nukes and can threaten at least South Korea and Japan with them.

http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6155956.ece

Yeah, but why would North Korea even try to hit us instead of South Korea or Japan? They're closer, they're easier to hit, they're historical enemies, and they can't retaliate in kind like we could.

Seriously. This is a country that can't even maintain a stable electric grid, but we should be worried about an imminent nuclear attack from them? Something which is far more complex? No thanks. There's enough fear to go around already without stroking Kim Jong nutjob ego.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So... does anybody want to sign the anti-missle shield components of the treaty with Russia in light of the Norks action today?

Absolutely. Our nuclear aresenal doesn't seem to faze NK today.

In the end, it makes us no less vulnerable, but it gives the appearance that that world leaders are serious about peace...even as others don't appear so much. Excellent for public opinion...causing a serious blow to terrorist recruiting. To say nothing about cutting govt spending without having an impact on defense.

Russia's Interfax news agency said Russia condemned North Korea's artillery shelling, pointing out that "those who initiated the attack on a South Korean island in the northern part of the inter-Korean maritime border line assumed enormous responsibility."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Which might, at its peak range, hit one of the Aleutian Isles.

We might get lucky.

I'm kidding, of course. She doesn't live in Alaska, she lives in a bunker under the Fox studio in NYC, insulated only by her own sense of victimhood.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Yeah, but why would North Korea even try to hit us instead of South Korea or Japan? They're closer, they're easier to hit, they're historical enemies, and they can't retaliate in kind like we could.

Seriously. This is a country that can't even maintain a stable electric grid, but we should be worried about an imminent nuclear attack from them? Something which is far more complex? No thanks. There's enough fear to go around already without stroking Kim Jong nutjob ego.

Because conservatives need a boogyman to fear to justify the spending in their mind. when NK is discredited again (like they are after every one of their big "announcement launches" it will go back to Iran...

This is just another "My spending is ok, your spending is wasteful" situation.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because conservatives need a boogyman to fear to justify the spending in their mind. when NK is discredited again (like they are after every one of their big "announcement launches" it will go back to Iran...

Don't forget the jaguar of the south, Venezuela.

Not that Republicans have ever been serious about controlling spending. As you said, it's just spending on what they want to spend on.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Which might, at its peak range, hit one of the Aleutian Isles.

Once again, seeing as we aren't Japan, South Korea, Russia, or China...meh.

Yeah, but why would North Korea even try to hit us instead of South Korea or Japan? They're closer, they're easier to hit, they're historical enemies, and they can't retaliate in kind like we could.

Seriously. This is a country that can't even maintain a stable electric grid, but we should be worried about an imminent nuclear attack from them? Something which is far more complex? No thanks. There's enough fear to go around already without stroking Kim Jong nutjob ego.

So, Kim is a nutjob, but you expect him to act rationally if he decides to lob nukes? That doesn't make any sense. The potential of Kim sending a nuke at the U.S. has obvious strategic value.

I agree they probably can't hit us now, but I'm sure they aren't standing still in advancing their technologies on this, and they have a track record of making advancements, regardless of whether they can feed their people, keep an electric grid going (I'm sure they keep it going to their nuke facilities). One needs to think ahead and think long term on this stuff. It is extremely foolhardy to only look at it at the moment, say they can't hit us today, and forget about it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's funny how all the libs duck any serious discussion of the long term risks of being hit by a nuke (not to mention a chemical weapon missile of some sort), and divert to discussions of how it will cost a little money to continue R&D on the subject. Come on, sidle up to the table and take our nation's long term security seriously. As for funding, I'd rather see the defense budget spend a little money on this, rather than some other areas, and it would only take a tiny fraction of the defense budget to fund on-going R&D on this. Makes a lot more sense than the ostrich approach many Americans have become fond of.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's funny how all the libs duck any serious discussion of the long term risks of being hit by a nuke (not to mention a chemical weapon missile of some sort)

Well, if we're being silly, why not explain to us your plan for dealing with NK and all countries with nukes, on their way to getting them or with the resources to get them if they want, particularly unstable regimes like Pakistan. If you fail to do so, you are ducking any serious discussion of the risks of being hit by a nuke and OH FORGODSSAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!1.

Cute game, eh?

Doesn't anybody (sob) think of the children?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, if we're being silly, why not explain to us your plan for dealing with NK and all countries with nukes, on their way to getting them or with the resources to get them if they want, particularly unstable regimes like Pakistan. If you fail to do so, you are ducking any serious discussion of the risks of being hit by a nuke and OH FORGODSSAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!1.

Cute game, eh?

Doesn't anybody (sob) think of the children?

I don't have to have a comprehensive plan to deal with all these countries to recognize that one piece of any such plan should be to deal with possible nukes or chemical weapon missiles being sent our way by some crazy in North Korea or elsewhere. To me the best possibility I've heard of is to intercept them before they hit us. It's really a pretty basic concept. But I guess not basic enough for people to not duck it on this board. No, it's not "OH FORGODSSAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!1", it's I'd rather be prepared when, sooner or later, someone who is a nutjob can actually hit us with a nuke or chemical weapon missile. As technology spreads and advances, it's inevitable someone like North Korea will have such a capability. And when that happens, and they try to blackmail us, and we have no defense for it, everyone will sit around and moan about how we should have done something in the decades before when one could reasonably perceive that this threat was growing and somewhere down the road would materialize. But, I have no hope for such forward thinking.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, Kim is a nutjob, but you expect him to act rationally if he decides to lob nukes? That doesn't make any sense. The potential of Kim sending a nuke at the U.S. has obvious strategic value.

I don't expect him to act rationally, I expect him to take the path of least resistance. Even nutjobs tend to be lazy and hold grudges, all else being equal.

Also, what is the strategic value in attacking the U.S. versus, say, Japan? What could North Korea possibly gain from that besides being (further) reduced to rubble?

Bob, how are you able to get out of bed in the morning? You're afraid of Mexican drug lords, muslim terrorists, north korean crackpots, anyone who wishes to get on an airplane, etc.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I don't expect him to act rationally, I expect him to take the path of least resistance. Even nutjobs tend to be lazy and hold grudges, all else being equal.

Also, what is the strategic value in attacking the U.S. versus, say, Japan? What could North Korea possibly gain from that besides being (further) reduced to rubble?

Bob, how are you able to get out of bed in the morning? You're afraid of Mexican drug lords, muslim terrorists, north korean crackpots, anyone who wishes to get on an airplane, etc.

All else is never equal. They'd be interested in hitting us for the same reason terrorists tend to target the U.S. We are a much bigger symbolic target than South Korea or Japan would be. It's pretty easy to see why hitting the U.S. would be more appealing to North Korea, if they had the capability to do so. But, you are still probably shrugging your shoulders as to why 9/11 happened.

I get out of bed in the morning just fine. But I do recognize that I live in a world where not everybody thinks like I do, or values what I do, or acts rationally.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

We might get lucky.

I'm kidding, of course. She doesn't live in Alaska, she lives in a bunker under the Fox studio in NYC, insulated only by her own sense of victimhood.

Kepler's advice: "Ignore Palin"


Kepler in practice: " PALIN PALIN PALIN PALIN PALIN!!!"

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Also, isn't the big fear with North Korea that people haven't mentioned yet that they could sell their nuclear tech to countries that actually could harm us?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's funny how all the libs duck any serious discussion of the long term risks of being hit by a nuke (not to mention a chemical weapon missile of some sort), and divert to discussions of how it will cost a little money to continue R&D on the subject. Come on, sidle up to the table and take our nation's long term security seriously. As for funding, I'd rather see the defense budget spend a little money on this, rather than some other areas, and it would only take a tiny fraction of the defense budget to fund on-going R&D on this. Makes a lot more sense than the ostrich approach many Americans have become fond of.

I'll take this question on as serious.

I'm not necessarily against total miliary spending. I am against the gobs of wasteful spending...much of which is due to poor priorities. So to identify nuclear as a threat the US should deal with...rather than a ground war between modern nations...means something. So I'm ok with the general concept of missle shields and improvements in intel against terror...but what that means is that you literally cut overseas American feet on the ground in half. If you reduce overall spending significantly...but get missle shield techology...it seems to make a bit more sense. Then the only beef with a missle shield is that it isolates countries that shouldn't be isolated...ie Russia.

So rather than a big system...develop independent sites that can be networked and then sell them. With a networked opt in system...the US is covered, EU will pay then they're covered, Russia has the option of opting in, so does China, India, etc. Then if missles goes from India towards China for some reason...China gets a shot at them, then Russia and maybe even the US? And best of all, we sell the technology...rather than just spend as the militant types want.

Done. A superior lib solution.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I'll take this question on as serious.

I'm not necessarily against total miliary spending. I am against the gobs of wasteful spending...much of which is due to poor priorities. So to identify nuclear as a threat the US should deal with...rather than a ground war between modern nations...means something. So I'm ok with the general concept of missle shields and improvements in intel against terror...but what that means is that you literally cut overseas American feet on the ground in half. If you reduce overall spending significantly...but get missle shield techology...it seems to make a bit more sense. Then the only beef with a missle shield is that it isolates countries that shouldn't be isolated...ie Russia.

So rather than a big system...develop independent sites that can be networked and then sell them. With a networked opt in system...the US is covered, EU will pay then they're covered, Russia has the option of opting in, so does China, India, etc. Then if missles goes from India towards China for some reason...China gets a shot at them, then Russia and maybe even the US? And best of all, we sell the technology...rather than just spend as the militant types want.

Done. A superior lib solution.

Interesting idea. And thanks for a serious response. I'm not big on having U.S. troops all over the globe, including places where there's little threat of invasion (like say Germany), so some retrenchment there is ok with me. That in and of itself should more than fund missile defense R&D. On overall defense spending, any serious approach to reigning in the federal deficit will have to include defense cuts, probably substantial. It's too big a part of the budget to escape the ax. Of course hopefully it would be done with some wisdom. Realistically, it won't be cut meaningfully, just like most federal spending won't be cut meaningfully, but that's another discussion.

The network idea is interesting, and reminds me in some ways of Bush's interest in putting missile defense in various places, such as central/eastern Europe. A fundamental problem would be shipping our latest technology to folks who aren't that friendly to us. That's generally a no-no. Mostly my thinking is toward protecting our country and its population, but certainly there is a wider international aspect to this.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

All else is never equal. They'd be interested in hitting us for the same reason terrorists tend to target the U.S. We are a much bigger symbolic target than South Korea or Japan would be. It's pretty easy to see why hitting the U.S. would be more appealing to North Korea, if they had the capability to do so. But, you are still probably shrugging your shoulders as to why 9/11 happened.

North Korea isn't in the "terror" game, though, any more than Russia was or Cuba is. It's not a group of pari-militants ala the Taliban; it's a soverign nation, albeit one led by a crackpot dictator.

And I've got a pretty good grip on why 9/11 happened. It's our own response to 9/11 that has me shrugging my shoulders.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler's advice: "Ignore Palin"


Kepler in practice: " PALIN PALIN PALIN PALIN PALIN!!!"

Palin seems to live in the heads of the smarter than the rest of us liberals. Its a noticeable trend I see on some of the other boards I post on. I find it quite hilarious

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Another nice tie-in to the current discussion.