PDA

View Full Version : Peace!!!



road kill
02-02-2010, 10:33 AM
or not??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_re_us/us_nuclear_lab_budgets_1


His hypocrisy & hubris knows no bounds!!:D



rk

road kill
02-02-2010, 12:44 PM
I guess I was hopin' one of our resident "independents" could explain how a guy gets a Nobel PEACE prize, then sends trrops into a war and spends more money on NUKES??

No answer???

Not surprised...........




rk

Buzz
02-02-2010, 12:52 PM
OK, I'll bite:

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix

And that's all I have to say about that.

road kill
02-02-2010, 12:56 PM
OK, I'll bite:

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix

And that's all I have to say about that.

Well said!!

But I did think President Obama was above all the mortal short comings!!:D



rk

Roger Perry
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
I guess I was hopin' one of our resident "independents" could explain how a guy gets a Nobel PEACE prize, then sends trrops into a war and spends more money on NUKES??

No answer???

Not surprised...........




rk

Obama would not have had to send in more troops if Bush would have cleaned up his own wars or not started them. :rolleyes:

Henry V
02-02-2010, 01:24 PM
RK,
Thanks for posting more proof that he is an extreme left wing liberal ideologue as has been repeatedly suggested here many times. :)

I believe he explained his view on war pretty well during his noble prize acceptance speech.

JDogger
02-02-2010, 01:24 PM
I guess I was hopin' one of our resident "independents" could explain how a guy gets a Nobel PEACE prize, then sends trrops into a war and spends more money on NUKES??

No answer???

Not surprised...........




rk

Maybe it is because you are so obviously trolling. ;-)


But I did think President Obama was above all the mortal short comings!!:grin:

Whoops... wrong again.:p

JD

ducknwork
02-02-2010, 02:07 PM
Obama would not have had to send in more troops if Bush would have cleaned up his own wars or not started them. :rolleyes:

And if Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan...:rolleyes::rolleyes:


BTW, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass.

Buzz
02-02-2010, 02:12 PM
And if Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan...:rolleyes::rolleyes:


BTW, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass.


Maybe you guys need reminding that Clinton isn't and hasn't been president for some time, just as we keep being reminded that Bush is no longer pres.;-)

ducknwork
02-02-2010, 02:17 PM
Maybe you guys need reminding that Clinton isn't and hasn't been president for some time, just as we keep being reminded that Bush is no longer pres.;-)

I apologize for stooping to Roger's level...

mjh345
02-02-2010, 02:34 PM
And if Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan...:rolleyes::rolleyes:


BTW, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass.

If you think our terrorism problems would have been solved with the elimination of Bin Laden, then you better think again

Leddyman
02-02-2010, 02:38 PM
OK, I'll bite:

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix

And that's all I have to say about that.

The only question I have is when will that be?

road kill
02-02-2010, 02:46 PM
Maybe it is because you are so obviously trolling. ;-)



Whoops... wrong again.:p

JD

More like running a "trot-line" than trolling.........;-)



rk

Buzz
02-02-2010, 03:13 PM
This thread got me thinking, scary, I know. I started thinking about how I am sick and tired of the USA subsidizing the rest of the world. We subsidize the rest of the world's drugs by paying significantly more for prescription drugs than everyone else. We subsidize medical equipment by paying up to 10x what others pay for MRI equipment etc. We also subsidize the rest of the world through our military spending, to among other things, keep oil flowing out of the middle east. I started hunting on the internets and came across this graph. It was an eye opener for me.


http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/USvsWorld.gif

K G
02-02-2010, 05:57 PM
Here's an idea: show this graph to all the extremists in the world that have declared Jihad on the US. Perhaps they'll realize that if they leave us the he!! alone we'd spend less money on the military and could bring prescription drug and medical equipment costs down....whaddya think? ;-)

Just a thought regards,

kg

Buzz
02-02-2010, 06:14 PM
Here's an idea: show this graph to all the extremists in the world that have declared Jihad on the US. Perhaps they'll realize that if they leave us the he!! alone we'd spend less money on the military and could bring prescription drug and medical equipment costs down....whaddya think? ;-)

Just a thought regards,

kg


I don't think there is a connection between military spending and the cost of prescriptions and medical equipment. But the fact is, we are subsidizing the rest of the world in these areas. It's not like we are the only ones under attack from terrorists, and it's not like military spending began the day after 9-11. Is there a possibility that other countries can afford their social programs and safety nets because we are subsidizing their lifestyle?

YardleyLabs
02-02-2010, 06:25 PM
I suspect that our economy is now so dependent on feeding the military machine that withdrawal would be almost impossible. I sometimes wonder if the world would be better or worse off if we were a little more conservative about using our military power. Over $1 trillion of the proposed Federal budget is related to the military, including things like Veterans Benefits and the defense related components of Homeland Security along with the $800 billion being programmed for the Defense Department itself (base plus currently anticipate supplementals). There is actually no strategy for balancing the budget that does not involve massive reductions in military expenditures (say $200-300 billion per year).

Joe S.
02-02-2010, 07:35 PM
I guess I was hopin' one of our resident "independents" could explain how a guy gets a Nobel PEACE prize, then sends trrops into a war and spends more money on NUKES??

No answer???

Not surprised...........

rk

Hummm….yeah…I know I should pass but …

Have you stopped to consider the alternative? We let the stockpile degrade to the point that it becomes unreliable…then what? The weapons that we have used for 60 some years to keep us safe are now not safe in our backyard. Nor are they safe, God forbid, if we ever have to use them. Nuclear weapons are effective when the other side thinks you will use them and has a high degree of confidence that they will work as advertised. To let them decay doesn’t seem logical to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

OR

Would you rather we unilaterally turn our weapons over to the IAEA and dismantle the weapons labs. Is that what you would rather see happen? That doesn’t seem logical, nor sound defense policy to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

MAYBE

You would have us tailor out some of the money for...oh, let's see, research...no...development...no…security...yeah.. .security. Now we have nuclear weapons that are not as secure as they should be to prevent the ever changing and growing threat of unauthorized access, use or compromise. That doesn’t seem logical…take it from here…

PERHAPS

You would rather the scientific base developed to support the weapons program not exist or exist on the payroll of someone else. Think through that for a bit and let me know how many ways you can spell PROBLEM…take it from here…

Now this part I am serious about: Please, you solve the stockpile problem and post your answer here. I promise you I will get it into Mr. D’Agostino’s hands.

THIS Really is the Deep End of the Pool Regards,

Joe S.

Roger Perry
02-02-2010, 08:05 PM
Hummm….yeah…I know I should pass but …

Have you stopped to consider the alternative? We let the stockpile degrade to the point that it becomes unreliable…then what? The weapons that we have used for 60 some years to keep us safe are now not safe in our backyard. Nor are they safe, God forbid, if we ever have to use them. Nuclear weapons are effective when the other side thinks you will use them and has a high degree of confidence that they will work as advertised. To let them decay doesn’t seem logical to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

OR

Would you rather we unilaterally turn our weapons over to the IAEA and dismantle the weapons labs. Is that what you would rather see happen? That doesn’t seem logical, nor sound defense policy to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

MAYBE

You would have us tailor out some of the money for...oh, let's see, research...no...development...no…security...yeah.. .security. Now we have nuclear weapons that are not as secure as they should be to prevent the ever changing and growing threat of unauthorized access, use or compromise. That doesn’t seem logical…take it from here…

PERHAPS

You would rather the scientific base developed to support the weapons program not exist or exist on the payroll of someone else. Think through that for a bit and let me know how many ways you can spell PROBLEM…take it from here…

Now this part I am serious about: Please, you solve the stockpile problem and post your answer here. I promise you I will get it into Mr. D’Agostino’s hands.

THIS Really is the Deep End of the Pool Regards,

Joe S.

Don't scold RK too much after all, he has waited 8 years to say something bad about the Democrats.

road kill
02-02-2010, 08:21 PM
Hummm….yeah…I know I should pass but …

Have you stopped to consider the alternative? We let the stockpile degrade to the point that it becomes unreliable…then what? The weapons that we have used for 60 some years to keep us safe are now not safe in our backyard. Nor are they safe, God forbid, if we ever have to use them. Nuclear weapons are effective when the other side thinks you will use them and has a high degree of confidence that they will work as advertised. To let them decay doesn’t seem logical to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

OR

Would you rather we unilaterally turn our weapons over to the IAEA and dismantle the weapons labs. Is that what you would rather see happen? That doesn’t seem logical, nor sound defense policy to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

MAYBE

You would have us tailor out some of the money for...oh, let's see, research...no...development...no…security...yeah.. .security. Now we have nuclear weapons that are not as secure as they should be to prevent the ever changing and growing threat of unauthorized access, use or compromise. That doesn’t seem logical…take it from here…

PERHAPS

You would rather the scientific base developed to support the weapons program not exist or exist on the payroll of someone else. Think through that for a bit and let me know how many ways you can spell PROBLEM…take it from here…

Now this part I am serious about: Please, you solve the stockpile problem and post your answer here. I promise you I will get it into Mr. D’Agostino’s hands.

THIS Really is the Deep End of the Pool Regards,

Joe S.

That's all great, not sure how deep your end is.....BUT....wasn't President Obama the one that was talking about leading the way to nuclear disarmament throughout the world??

" President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear arms."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQx45ro_PT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTB-LDWoETA


Kinda hard to follow this guy........things change awfully quick!!
Guess it ain't all that deep after all if you have a short memory....huh??:D



rk

Joe S.
02-02-2010, 09:38 PM
That's all great, not sure how deep your end is.....BUT....wasn't President Obama the one that was talking about leading the way to nuclear disarmament throughout the world??

" President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear arms."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQx45ro_PT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTB-LDWoETA


Kinda hard to follow this guy........things change awfully quick!!
Guess it ain't all that deep after all if you have a short memory....huh??:D



rk

Look this really IS rocket surgery (Lisa Van Loo, RTF, way back when...) we are talking about ...we have X nukes in the stockpile...it takes x3 money to support the stockplie. It stands to reason that x3 + Y money is going to be required to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and provide for the research and development to improve the stockpile while other weapons in the stockpile are being drawndown. The R&D would be for better, more efficient weapons AND cheaper, easier ways to dismantle and dispose of the old weapons. The outyear prospect is that we will have X-A nukes in the stockpile that will be safe, secure, and reliable into the future at a cost of x1 money.

By taking this approach, President Obama IS leading the way towards nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and disarmament.

I note with some sadness you didn't address the question I asked. Let me restate it simply and clearly for you:

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Again, YOU provide an effective alternative and I promise you, I will get it into Tom's hands.

From the Deep End Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
02-02-2010, 09:43 PM
I don't think there is a connection between military spending and the cost of prescriptions and medical equipment. But the fact is, we are subsidizing the rest of the world in these areas. It's not like we are the only ones under attack from terrorists, and it's not like military spending began the day after 9-11. Is there a possibility that other countries can afford their social programs and safety nets because we are subsidizing their lifestyle?

Buzz,

With respect and not meaning to speak for my Good Friend KG, I think what KG may have been getting at was if we don't spend so much on defense, but kept the same tax rate, the money not spent on defense could be spent on health care.

But I've Been Wrong Lots Regards,

Joe S.

Buzz
02-02-2010, 09:45 PM
" President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear arms."


rk

Must these events necessarily be mutually exclusive?

Joe S.
02-02-2010, 09:49 PM
Must these events necessarily be mutually exclusive?

No, in fact, in the early part of the program they MUST be mutually INCLUSIVE, I think.

JMHDAO (Used by permission, K2 Inc.)

Realistic Regards,

Joe S.

DSemple
02-03-2010, 09:19 AM
Hummm….yeah…I know I should pass but …
Have you stopped to consider the alternative? We let the stockpile degrade to the point that it becomes unreliable…then what? The weapons that we have used for 60 some years to keep us safe are now not safe in our backyard. Nor are they safe, God forbid, if we ever have to use them. Nuclear weapons are effective when the other side thinks you will use them and has a high degree of confidence that they will work as advertised. To let them decay doesn’t seem logical to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

OR

Would you rather we unilaterally turn our weapons over to the IAEA and dismantle the weapons labs. Is that what you would rather see happen? That doesn’t seem logical, nor sound defense policy to me. Perhaps you can help me better understand…

MAYBE

You would have us tailor out some of the money for...oh, let's see, research...no...development...no…security...yeah.. .security. Now we have nuclear weapons that are not as secure as they should be to prevent the ever changing and growing threat of unauthorized access, use or compromise. That doesn’t seem logical…take it from here…

PERHAPS

You would rather the scientific base developed to support the weapons program not exist or exist on the payroll of someone else. Think through that for a bit and let me know how many ways you can spell PROBLEM…take it from here…

Now this part I am serious about: Please, you solve the stockpile problem and post your answer here. I promise you I will get it into Mr. D’Agostino’s hands.

THIS Really is the Deep End of the Pool Regards,

Joe S.

Thanks for the detailed synopsis Joe. Good to have you and your Avatar ;-) back.

Don Semple

road kill
02-03-2010, 09:25 AM
Look this really IS rocket surgery (Lisa Van Loo, RTF, way back when...) we are talking about ...we have X nukes in the stockpile...it takes x3 money to support the stockplie. It stands to reason that x3 + Y money is going to be required to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and provide for the research and development to improve the stockpile while other weapons in the stockpile are being drawndown. The R&D would be for better, more efficient weapons AND cheaper, easier ways to dismantle and dispose of the old weapons. The outyear prospect is that we will have X-A nukes in the stockpile that will be safe, secure, and reliable into the future at a cost of x1 money.

By taking this approach, President Obama IS leading the way towards nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and disarmament.

I note with some sadness you didn't address the question I asked. Let me restate it simply and clearly for you:

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Again, YOU provide an effective alternative and I promise you, I will get it into Tom's hands.

From the Deep End Regards,

Joe S.


Is that fence comfortable up in there??:D


rk

JDogger
02-03-2010, 10:26 AM
More like running a "trot-line" than trolling.........;-)
rk

Looks like you caught yourself a big 'un! :rolleyes:

Buzz
02-03-2010, 11:22 AM
Buzz,

With respect and not meaning to speak for my Good Friend KG, I think what KG may have been getting at was if we don't spend so much on defense, but kept the same tax rate, the money not spent on defense could be spent on health care.

But I've Been Wrong Lots Regards,

Joe S.

I was responding specifically to the part in bold


Here's an idea: show this graph to all the extremists in the world that have declared Jihad on the US. Perhaps they'll realize that if they leave us the he!! alone we'd spend less money on the military and could bring prescription drug and medical equipment costs down....whaddya think?

I guess I'm not clear on what he proposes we do to bring these costs down that we can't do while spending so much on defense. Maybe he'll stop in and clear that up for me.

mjh345
02-03-2010, 01:24 PM
Looks like you caught yourself a big 'un! :rolleyes:

RK frequently gets caught in his own gill traps.
I presume constantly talking out of both sides of ones mouth increases the chances

road kill
02-03-2010, 01:51 PM
RK frequently gets caught in his own gill traps.
I presume constantly talking out of both sides of ones mouth increases the chances
I think he was talking about the "BIG" one I got on my trot line.
Now I have a "small" one as well!!:)


My point was (in case you don't have a 5th grader around to explain it to you) how can you reduce wasteful military spending and stop global nuclear proliferation by spending more?

I think that's a fair question, maybe you can avoid it with cute witicisms but the question does remain and is legit.

Waiting for someone to splain.......




rk

Buzz
02-03-2010, 02:26 PM
Waiting for someone to splain.......


rk

That's what Joe did I thought, I guess it's possible that you don't accept what he was saying.

road kill
02-03-2010, 02:31 PM
That's what Joe did I thought, I guess it's possible that you don't accept what he was saying.

Full context;
"My point was (in case you don't have a 5th grader around to explain it to you) how can you reduce wasteful military spending and stop global nuclear proliferation by spending more?

I think that's a fair question, maybe you can avoid it with cute witicisms but the question does remain and is legit.

Waiting for someone to splain......."


He was splainin' how you can have it BOTH ways??

I missed it.

My bad....course mebbe I just ain't smart enough!!??!!??


rk

JDogger
02-03-2010, 08:14 PM
Full context;
"My point was (in case you don't have a 5th grader around to explain it to you) how can you reduce wasteful military spending and stop global nuclear proliferation by spending more?

I think that's a fair question, maybe you can avoid it with cute witicisms but the question does remain and is legit.

Waiting for someone to splain......."


He was splainin' how you can have it BOTH ways??

I missed it.

My bad....course mebbe I just ain't smart enough!!??!!??


rk

It's called "Politickin'" rk, and both sides have it perfected.

For example;
Do the words, "Read my lips, no new taxes." ring a bell?

....and reality came to bear.

How about, a banner proclaiming "Mission accomplished."

....we're still there.

Or, "we will be greeted as liberators."

....that's worked out well!

BTW you're "smart enough". Ya gonna answer Joe's question? Got an alternative?

Yer fren' JD

PS I agree completely with Joe S.'s assessment. I train with people from both national labs, and what I hear is that we are not keeping up with the other members of the nuclear club. You do agree in a stong deterrent position, do you not?

Joe S.
02-03-2010, 09:33 PM
Full context;
"My point was (in case you don't have a 5th grader around to explain it to you) how can you reduce wasteful military spending and stop global nuclear proliferation by spending more?

I think that's a fair question, maybe you can avoid it with cute witicisms but the question does remain and is legit.

Waiting for someone to splain......."


He was splainin' how you can have it BOTH ways??

I missed it.

My bad....course mebbe I just ain't smart enough!!??!!??


rk

Clearly your next to last comment may seem accurate to many. Given that you know you better than any of us know you, maybe your last comment is accurate too, but these aren't really the issues, are they...

Maybe, the premise of your question is that money spent to keep the NUCLEAR WEAPON STOCKPILE safe, secure, and reliable amounts to "wasteful military spending." If that is correct, your assessment doesn't seem to be accurate to me. Lacking any other viable plan, or a plan put forth by you, there really isn't an alternative on the table that I can see.

Try this again:

We have X nukes in the stockpile...it takes x3 money to support the stockplie. It stands to reason that x3 + Y money is going to be required to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and provide for the research and development to improve the stockpile while other weapons in the stockpile are being drawndown. The R&D would be for better, more efficient weapons AND cheaper, easier ways to dismantle and dispose of the old weapons. The outyear prospect is that we will have X-A nukes in the stockpile that will be safe, secure, and reliable into the future at a cost of x1 money.

The key to this is spending the money (more money) now so that in the outyears there are fewer weapons (and associated infrastructure to support those weapons) in the stockpile that can then be maintained and secured longer for less cost.

Once this part of the answer is understood, the implications for nuclear non-proliferation and counterterrorism are clear, I think.

Just 'Splaining Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
02-04-2010, 07:37 AM
Clearly your next to last comment may seem accurate to many. Given that you know you better than any of us know you, maybe your last comment is accurate too, but these aren't really the issues, are they...

Maybe, the premise of your question is that money spent to keep the NUCLEAR WEAPON STOCKPILE safe, secure, and reliable amounts to "wasteful military spending." If that is correct, your assessment doesn't seem to be accurate to me. Lacking any other viable plan, or a plan put forth by you, there really isn't an alternative on the table that I can see.

Try this again:

We have X nukes in the stockpile...it takes x3 money to support the stockplie. It stands to reason that x3 + Y money is going to be required to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and provide for the research and development to improve the stockpile while other weapons in the stockpile are being drawndown. The R&D would be for better, more efficient weapons AND cheaper, easier ways to dismantle and dispose of the old weapons. The outyear prospect is that we will have X-A nukes in the stockpile that will be safe, secure, and reliable into the future at a cost of x1 money.

The key to this is spending the money (more money) now so that in the outyears there are fewer weapons (and associated infrastructure to support those weapons) in the stockpile that can then be maintained and secured longer for less cost.

Once this part of the answer is understood, the implications for nuclear non-proliferation and counterterrorism are clear, I think.

Just 'Splaining Regards,

Joe S.

You call it "splainin'," I'll call it "rationalization.":D







rk

Gerry Clinchy
02-04-2010, 10:59 AM
I don't really believe that Russia & China any longer really want to drop a nuke on the rest of the world ... they've got enough problems already feeding and housing their population; and the West provides the markets to sell their goods to finance the firrst two. Not really sure that North Korea is into self-immolation either in spite of sabre-rattling. When will somebody sit at a summit conference and mention that?

OTOH, there are those wackos, as we've seen, who believe that suicide is a valid end to knocking off those who disagree with your philosphy. The leaders of those people will probably try to find themselves a safe hole to hide in even as they send their underlings to self-destruct.

So, like how many nuclear warheads do we really need? If the "good guys" and the "bad guys" each had 50, that should be quite enough to reduce global civilization to a cinder or an unlivable wasteland. In fact, if both siides get off 10, the other 80 are probably a non-issue. If the "believers" wipe all infidels off the earth, they might just take all the "believers" with them. Who's left to spread Allah's message? Maybe they haven't taken their thinking that far?

The wackos are as great a danger to China, Russia, North Korea, etc. as they are to the U.S. The U.S. is likely thei wackos primary target (for now) since it is the most visible symbol of power in the world. With the U.S. out of the picture, the rest would fall like dominoes.