OT - Nuclear test ban treaty

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

"I reject any suggestion of reckless partisanship. If there's any partisanship, it's on the other side."
Good one.

Is there any silver lining to voting the test ban treaty down? If there is, I can't find it.

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

You're right Klar, no silver lining, and the dark cloud will continue to grow ever darker. The treaty would have allowed us to set up 3 times as many test sensors as we now have, to conduct inspections when necessary, and to enforce the reduction of nukes. Instead, we have nothing better than where things are now, and a seal of approval for them to get much worse. This was a politically motivated transgression for the entire human race, and today may go down in history as the day when the decision was made to allow the world to propogate the ideal conditions for the final Armageddon. A very, very, VERY sad day for mankind.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

Not quite as sad as the '92 election. Clinton would ask us to 'trust' him, China, Russia but fear the 'right-wing conspiracy'????

You two had better be careful about posting so close together. The fish hooks in your lips might become entangled. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 15, 1999.


Not trusting a liberal President who has a known track record of lying and saying to Russia and China that the USA will not standby while they test with impunity is a silver lining!

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

not just a liar...but a purposeful intent to decieve a grand jury...lying under oath. Convicted.

-- David John (djcon@bellsouth.net), October 15, 1999.

I just can't imagine why they wouldn't accept a treaty that had been orchestrated by a worm who collects "Y2K Beanie Babies" and has sex with anything that breathes (please note I didn't limit him to two feet).

Amazing. What WERE they thinking, to put our national security ahead of president Bill's 'word'? tsk, tsk, tsk.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 15, 1999.



The vote by the senate is all silver lining. The treaty was a joke. We would live up to it. Our enemies would not. Eventually our nuclear arsenal would be so unreliable as to be worthless. I don't want to be at the "mercy" of the Chinese, North Koreans or Iraqis. Now its time to shitcan the ABM treaty and develop a real missle defence. But that will take the election of someone who cares about defending the US not the current Liar or his sidekick ALgore.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), October 15, 1999.

America needs to pull out of the treaty syndrome. The treaties are and have been in the past choking our own development and technology not others. This is not a settled globe. Earth is not "done." This is not the time to lay down our weapons.

I think the millennium is causing a fever that somehow the world and its societies are old now, the dust has a settled, it is just a bore ahead, and with entities like the "UN" why would anyone need to be developing nuclear weapons?

The overwhelming majority of Americans do want sovereingty and that does mean we have to be on the cutting edge of weaponry at all times. There isn't going to be a "UN" in the future. Just America leading NATO.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 15, 1999.


Did you read the treaty @?

It's all bullshit, designed to take American strength and sovereignty out of any future equation.

The treaty required:

48 Hour notice BEFORE any inspection by the UN can take place.

Sensors being restricted to 20 kilometers from any site a nation objects to.

Right of Refusal of a suspect country to allow an inspection without a vote of the Security Council.

No enforcement mechanisms exist in the treaty.

Russia, China , Pakistan, and North Korea have refused to sign the treaty. There are no mechanisms to assuage them to abide by the treaty.

Have you learned nothing from the Iraqi UN weapon's inspection fiasco from last year @? It was a UN Joke! I don't recall the UN or NATO going into Iraq to enforce the UN Weapon's Inspection treaty.

This treaty would be no different.

TREATIES WITH DON"T WORK....except by those willing to abide them. And they are globally known as Suckers.

This is the same argument as gun control. Take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the criminal element has a field day preying on the newly disarmed populace. Criminals do not abide by the law.

The same is true with law abiding countries that will fall prey to other nations that do not abide by our rules.

We would be collectively slitting our own throats.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


As I said, a "politically motivated" transgression. Thanks for proving my point.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

I just wish I could figure out the WHY? of it all. It amazes me...Is it that Bubba and his gang of criminals REALLY believe that this is the "best for the children?" Who's children? His daughter Chelsea's kids? Doesn't that fool realize, that for the sake of a footnote in a book, he's going to give the ENTIRE game away? It's just like the hypocratcy (sp?) of the anti-abortion leage, the gun control league, and the "Lets give the nukes away" gang. Not to start anything... but DAMN!!! Could they possibly be that stupid? I just can't see how a rational adult could really feel that this is the way to go!!!

(RANT OFF)

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.



@,

Name ONE, just ONE nuclear or Conventional Arms treaty that has worked per its intent.

Just one, this century.

Poltical transgression or otherwise, the reality is intentions are no substitute for dealing with reality.

Just because we want to FEEL good, and FEEL safe that we signed such a treaty, would not erase the fact that China, Russia or BOTH would nuke us to glowing glass at the first opportunity.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


Invar,

Again, you are dodging my logic. I have already conceded that Russia and China have the power to destroy us, and we can probably never change that. But what if it turns out to be one of these smaller countries that STARTS using the nukes FIRST? Isn't that a more likely scenario? Imagine what would have happened in Iraq or Bosnia or Kosovo if they used nukes against our troops. We would have had to counter to them with nukes, and THEN the Russians or Chinese might jump in, but the whole mess is going to START with one of these smaller unstable countries if they have the power to do it. We might have been able to prevent THEM from proliferating nukes, now we've given them the green light. If anyone was going to be able to cheat on an agreement like this and get away with it it would be US! We would never reduce our stockpiles to less than we need to destroy Russia.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.


@,

Your ignorance on this issue is screaming at me so loud, I'm going deaf.

Name ONE THING in that treaty that would have halted Russia, China, Korea or Pakistan from proliferating Nukes to rogue terrorist nations or cells?

Name ONE nation that has historically abided in weapons treaties besides the good 'Ol duped U. S. of A?

Why then shoud we restrict ourselves from being able to test our aging arsenal, and to develop a stockpile that would ensure that any nation that used such a weapon on us would be totally wiped from existence? Do you think other nations that have nukes have restrained from using them because they love and respect law like we do?

No. The have the FEAR that if they used such a weapon, we would vaporize them and their nation from the earth. Peace through Strength. What doctrine do you think won the Cold War?

>>>"But what if it turns out to be one of these smaller countries that STARTS using the nukes FIRST? Isn't that a more likely scenario? Imagine what would have happened in Iraq or Bosnia or Kosovo if they used nukes against our troops. We would have had to counter to them with nukes, and THEN the Russians or Chinese might jump in, but the whole mess is going to START with one of these smaller unstable countries if they have the power to do it."<<<

So what you suggest is that we become sitting ducks, absorb a strike and watch millions of Americans die. You're advocating appeasement, which HAS NEVER WORKED IN ALL HISTORY.

Do you honestly believe that if we don't have, or are unwilling to use nukes in any scenario that we will be safe from annihilation because our enemies will respect our unarmed stance?

Get a whiff of reality @, and stop sniffing the glue.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


Invar,

I don't sniff glue or do drugs like you asshole, and I really don't see the need to say something like that just because you don't like my viewpoint. Yeah, I heard Rush this morning too, pointing out all the previous examples of treaty failures. Does that mean that just because there have been failed attempts before, that we shouldn't try again? What ever happened to "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again"? What ever happened to positive thinking? Or is it just that you and Rush are so determined to frustrate the Democrats that you are willing to risk the fate of the entire human race? You're sick. I'll make you a deal, I'll quit sniffing glue if you grow up.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.


Wasn't attacking you personally...am incredulous you really believe what you're saying, when historically man has proven time and again that he has no intention of abiding agreements unless he gains advantage.

But @, you reside in fantasyland.

You have no concept or understanding of human nature. Russia, China and other Islamic nations WANT US DESTROYED.

What is so hard to fathom here?

You would be willing to destroy our only means of ensuring our defense, in order to feel good about yourself and your intentions....even after we've had our nation blown to atomic bits? Because that's what you are saying. You are saying that intentions have more weight than action, even if it means our deaths.

You are advocating appeasement, and I don't care if you think we need to try, try again. Appeasements always lead to greater calamities and conflict. That is an historical fact. Can your intentions rise above the depraved nature of mankind @?

Positive karma and thinking will not stop Osama Bin-Laden or China from nuking Los Angeles if it serves their purpose and intent. Nor will holding a candlelight vigil.

If they want us destroyed, and they fear us not...then they will do it.

BTW, I Don't get Rush out here between the hollers, noor any Am radio for that matter. But if he said what I did then good, America needs to hear the truth. For once, the Republicans in the Senate did the right thing for OUR nation.

Good intentions is all the Liberal Democrats have to offer. What always results is greater suffering, hardship and calamity, because they present no real solutions. Only emotional arguments.

Start THINKING @, instead of feeling. Russia can care less about our INTENTIONS, unless it benefits them and their ambitions.

THINK. You've got 6,000 years of recorded human history to glean from, and NONE of your ideas has ever succeeded!

Peace Through Strength is the only doctrine that EVER had any weight in all history.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.



Alright Invar, this subject makes me depressed and tired of arguing. You've already won anyway, so what the hell am I dreaming about. I guess I'd rather die dreaming about mankind living in harmony than to have to live in a world where the only reason people get along is because they are paranoid of getting nuked by their neighbors. Anyway, regardless of what the goddamn politicians do, I've still got my dreams, and they'll have to kill me before they take those away.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

"I guess I'd rather die dreaming about mankind living in harmony...."

It's going to take God to bring that about @.

Man cannot do it alone....and that's the painful lesson mankind is going to learn, just short of annihilating all life on this planet.

But be of good cheer, mankind WILL be living in harmony some day soon. Man however, will not be the ones to bring it about.

And thank God for that. It's all part of the lesson that man is incapable of governing himself.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


Will continue -
Nice shots - too bad you're completely avoiding the topic! Thanks for all your worthless, irrelevant input.

INVAR-
"You are saying that intentions have more weight than action,"
No he isn't; you're putting words into his mouth. You are saying that intentions are not worthwhile. There is a small chance, however miniscule, that a full blown nuclear war isn't inevitable. And voting down this treaty makes that chance a bit smaller.

"You would be willing to destroy our only means of ensuring our defense"
Ensuring our defense? Nice try. In a world with 44 nuclear capable nations it is only a matter of time before incidents occur. Or maybe we'll be sucked into a war again by one of the great instigators. Would you prefer an arms race over moves in a peaceful direction, however small they might be?

"Name ONE nation that has historically abided in weapons treaties besides the good 'Ol duped U. S. of A?"
First, you might be interested to know that the treaty would include an "exit clause," allowing us to renege on our part in situations we deem unacceptable. I might remind you that the U.S. recently rekindled an arms race by attacking first Iraq and then Kosovo, breaking international treaties and laws in the process. Why do you think these terrorist groups and "communist" nations want to see the U.S. burned up? Because of all the good deeds she's done? Also, please provide us with evidence proving conclusively that the U.S. has completely abided by weapons treaties.

"You've got 6,000 years of recorded human history to glean from, and NONE of your ideas has ever succeeded!"
And you can boast the same of your ideas. Not only are you again putting words into the poor fellows mouth, you are misinterpreting the real use for this treaty. It sends a signal. Passing it at least implies a willingness to reduce arms and avoid conflict. Voting it down tells others, "Full speed ahead! This race is just getting started!"

"Man cannot do it alone....and that's the painful lesson mankind is going to learn, just short of annihilating all life on this planet."
Agreed. A quick look at history will show us the incredibly destructive nature of man. But considering that we are capable of change, can't we at least keep a small glimmer of hope alive?

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), October 16, 1999.


One more thing, all of you - let's see if we can separate this issue from Billy Bob for just one argument. Partisan b.s. from both sides and his incompetent administration are the forces that really killed this treaty in the first place.

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), October 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ