Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1217

The impact of a U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 treaty could be immense. It would give the Pentagon a green light to conduct tests outlawed by the treaty and make a sharper judgment on the kind of defense that might work.

The 1972 ABM treaty is based on the proposition that stripping a nuclear power of a tough defense against missile attack would inhibit launching an attack because the retaliation would be deadly.

Past supporters of the treaty, such as former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, support Bush in his view the world has changed over the past three decades.

Excerted from:AOL NEWS

__________________________________________________
______________________

Neverminding the foreign political ramifications, it would give America the legal go ahead to resume nuclear testing and probably even allow nuclear stockpiling. And what about the domino effect of our disregard for the ABM changing the minds of every other country who signed it? "If America disregards it, then why shouldn't we?"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leroy Binks

Excerted from:AOL NEWS

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I imagine that once the US leaves the treaty, the treaty is dead.

What if the missile defence doesn't work (entirely possible)?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
What if the missile defence doesn't work (entirely possible)?

---

There's no "what if" about it

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9166

Everyone seems to be saying that the missile defense won't work with existing (known) technology which would indicate that

i) The US have some tech that no one has heard of / leaked

ii) They want to get out of the treaty for other reasons

My money is on door number 2.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

The possible implications of anti missile technology could be incredibly wonderful.
The possibilities of entire cities being wiped out in seconds would be gone if we shared the tech (we share just about everything else). I’m pretty willing to bet once this treaty non-sense is gone countries like Russia, Japan will probably be in on the development.
Good news indeed!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Last edited by euphorbia on 12-12-2001 at 03:19 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I don't think it will be shared, The US wouldn't even share the atomic bomb with their allies (ie, Britain) nor would they share the supersonic technology (and they were bound to do that as part of the information sharing agreement).

The US has sold equipment but has shared very little technology, as far as I am aware.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I don't think it will be shared, The US wouldn't even share the atomic bomb with their allies (ie, Britain) nor would they share the supersonic technology (and they were bound to do that as part of the information sharing agreement).

The US has sold equipment but has shared very little technology, as far as I am aware.

---

You wouldn’t say the world and the US has changed since then?

I thought it was the Brits who came up with the first supersonic technology? I guess I was mistaken?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9166

I think the US (and Bush certainly) is more interested in retaining pre-eminence but being able to retreat into a more isolationist posture.

If they had a realistic anti-missile shield and were sole holders of it this would let them retain the status of Super Power without the ugly politics of intervention.

Not that I think the AMS will work though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9166

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia

I thought it was the Brits who came up with the first supersonic technology? I guess I was mistaken?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goatboy


I think it was a Brit scientist but the government laughed at his ideas and wouldn't fund him.

---

So maybe he was bitter and would only do it for us if we didnt tell you...neener neener...

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Well I know that Bush threatened to do this pre sept 11th, and the time now is about the time he said he would make the unilateral decision if no headway was made with Russia on the issue.

quote:

---

BBC News

Mr Daschle, speaking after a weekly breakfast meeting between Mr Bush and the leaders of Congress, did not say when the president intended to announce his decision.

---

Last edited by Spooky on 12-12-2001 at 03:53 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

A brit worked out how to make the plane controllable at supersonic speeds (as shockwaves tended to freeze up the aerilons) and the government weren't too interested. The data was shared with the americans in an agreement that data would come back, but the US classified it and wouldn't share it. This was the story that was on a TV show that I saw a month or so ago.

I am ambivalent about the elimination of the nuclear arsenals of the world. You could argue that nuclear weapons actually prevented much more serious war. But on the other hand they can end the world very quickly, quicker than we can do any other way.

I think that the concern of the rest of the world is that the MAD principle which prevented the use of nuclear weapons would not restrict the US any more. Even if you trust the current and forseeable US administrations, you might not trust ones in the more distant future and once you give a power like that to the Commander-in-Chief, they will have it until everyone else develops the technology. I bet that various people here might not have wanted it in the hands of Clinton and others here don't trust Bush with it. I imagine that this is why it was treatied away all that time ago.

It is a tricky issue I think. I am not convinced that it will work either, but if it doesn't we have no missile defense and no treaty either, which is a worse situation than before.

I can see why the US government wants to do this, but I think that some more caution (a la Powell) would be appropriate.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky



Thiws does seem a stramnge way of leaking such information, and politcally bizarre at such a time internationally. Sounds to me like someone is trying to rehas old news for some other purpose. What's been buried?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Last edited by euphorbia on 12-12-2001 at 03:53 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
I thought it was the Brits who came up with the first supersonic technology? I guess I was mistaken?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

apologies for the multitude of typing errors in my first post. why the though?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

And shouldn't this be in the fucking politicas forum, damn you all!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

As a side note I don't think it will work (but you all know that from me already) and there have been no successful tests as yet. All the tests as I understand it have been successes because the 'target' missile had a transmittor on it for the 'defence; missile to lock onto. ie they have proved you can destroy a missile midair with another.

Of course, it won't stop a United airplane though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged