quoting John McCain -the ultimate war pig- shows the bankruptcy of Russiaphobia
"no defense" aganst multiple Russian nuclear cruise missiles
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
They can investigate all they want. I called Trump's tweets for what they were, and what EVERYONE knows they were at this point.
Sorry that he's your hero and you can't face up to the fact that he goes off half-cocked on twitter whenever he sees something on TV or fake news. It must be painful for you, since you adore him so much.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Prove he is my hero. And your opinion is not proof.
Funny how you change your stance on the investigation now that your double standards have been shown.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Do you ever stop lying?
Where did I "change my stance" on investigating? I never said they shouldn't investigate it. I just called Trump's tweets for what they were.
You are truly one of the most dishonest posters here.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
And he's definitely your hero. Please.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Yes you did. You totally trashed the investigation request.
I'll note that you offered ZERO Proof for you dishonest claim Trump is my hero. You have none because you know it isn't true.
I'm really sick of your constant lies about people. And you lie about what you say. For example the above and you lied you changed your mind that Hillary would win. You're a chronic liar.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I started a thread saying that Comey cost Hillary the election. Deal w/ it. When the polls didn't move as much as I thought they would, I figured she would win - but that's a prediction, not a lie. You're really a stupid and very confused person.
And a bad liar. I trashed Trump because it was obvious he was lying, but I never came out against an investigation into wiretap claims. You're putting words in my mouth; it's truly disgusting.
But it's what your hero does. You take those lessons well.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
No dumbass, you lied you changed back to a Hillary win.
It is like reasoning with a child.
It is like reasoning with a child.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
One post after another...
And each and every one of them...
Just one petty personal attack after another.
And all I wanted was a rational dialogue with a Trump supporter.
Ah well, dim bulbs like the YurTard just can't stand it when he gets schooled.
He's got no recourse but to lash out at those who highlight his infantile actions.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Your constant defense of Trump's comments and tweets proves he's your hero.
I notice you never did back up your infantile attack on Thing1 with some actual proof.
Color me SHOCKED!!
zappasguitar
Well-known member
zappasguitar
Well-known member
If you're so sure he did, then how about you actually back up your bullshit with some actual proof for once in your misbegotten life.
I know better than to hold my breath waiting for you to corroborate any of your ignorance.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
dude....he beat Hilliary.....of COURSE he's a hero......
there is always that..
After more than a year of being told the world would end if Trump got in, Trump got in. After more than a year of being told Trump couldn’t win, Trump won. Democrats stood stupefied for a moment like a little kid who just got hit with a ball but hasn’t started crying yet… and then all the crazy came pouring right out into the open.
It was Comey’s fault. No, it was Bernie’s fault. No, it was third parties. Wait, no, it was Russia. Yeah, that’s it! Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia Russia Russia. Everyone who says we’re acting crazy right now is a Russian agent. Isn’t the CIA awesome? Gosh I love the CIA. Also Dick Cheney and John McCain, they’re great too. Know who I hate though? Russia. Did you know Russian bots convinced Sanders supporters to hate Hillary Clinton? Also, any Sanders supporters you saw criticizing Hillary were actually Russian bots disguising as Bernie Bros. Basically Hillary was perfect and the DNC scandal never happened. If you think you hated Hillary you imagined it. Have I mentioned I hate Russia? They committed an act of war against us, you know. War war war war war war war. I like war now. Not Russia though. Have I mentioned I hate Russia?
Sheer yammering lunacy.
It was Comey’s fault. No, it was Bernie’s fault. No, it was third parties. Wait, no, it was Russia. Yeah, that’s it! Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia Russia Russia. Everyone who says we’re acting crazy right now is a Russian agent. Isn’t the CIA awesome? Gosh I love the CIA. Also Dick Cheney and John McCain, they’re great too. Know who I hate though? Russia. Did you know Russian bots convinced Sanders supporters to hate Hillary Clinton? Also, any Sanders supporters you saw criticizing Hillary were actually Russian bots disguising as Bernie Bros. Basically Hillary was perfect and the DNC scandal never happened. If you think you hated Hillary you imagined it. Have I mentioned I hate Russia? They committed an act of war against us, you know. War war war war war war war. I like war now. Not Russia though. Have I mentioned I hate Russia?
Sheer yammering lunacy.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Yeah, the Russians would obviously like to posture air, surface, and subsurface platforms as close to land as possible before launching a warhead. This is another threat we have to deal with. Thankfully, we don't really have to worry about NK doing this.
you are hopelessly mired in MAD
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Sen. Tom Cotton wants ARMS RACE over Russian cruise missiles
We believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO.” He also noted — to the best of his knowledge — that “they do not intend to return to compliance.”
In other words, the Russians have calculated that it costs them more to fulfill their treaty commitments than to break them. The only proper response to this provocation is to increase the costs and change Russia’s calculation.
The agreement in question is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which the Soviet Union and the United States signed in 1987 to eliminate an entire class of land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Reasons for the treaty date back to the late 1970s, when the Soviet Union deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles to Europe, reducing warning times and threatening to divide Europe from North America. NATO responded by deploying U.S. intermediate-range nuclear missiles in 1983. The increased tensions ultimately led to arms-control negotiations and the landmark INF Treaty.
From Vladimir Putin’s perspective, the treaty is a one-sided deal. Since only the United States and Russia are parties to the treaty, Russia’s neighbors may develop intermediate-range forces. For that reason, the Kremlin sees itself as surrounded by hostile countries. Moreover, land-based cruise missiles simply don’t pose the same threat to the United States — guarded as it is by two oceans.
As long as the United States refuses to back up its words with actions, violating the treaty is a low-risk, high-reward proposition for Russia. The missile deployment not only sows divisions between the United States and its allies, but also yields no consequences. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation with a group of senators that would direct the Pentagon to take four measures until Russia lives up to its obligations.
First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete.
Second, the bill would provide $500 million in funding for new defense capabilities that could neutralize whatever advantage Russia gains by violating the treaty. For instance, we could continue the deployment of the sea-based Standard Missile-3 on land-based sites. A new Russian cruise missile becomes much less valuable if the United States and its allies can easily shoot it down.
Third, the bill would direct the Pentagon to facilitate the transfer of cruise missiles among our allies. Even if the United States cannot keep these kinds of weapons itself, it can arrange business deals among our allies who can. The Polish government has been acquiring air-launched cruise missiles for some time; perhaps if we helped add intermediate-range ground-launched missiles to their arsenal, Russia might think twice about its reckless strategy.
Finally, the bill curtails funding for two treaties that Russia wants to preserve. The first is a possible extension of the New START Treaty, which limits each country’s strategic nuclear forces (such as longer-range, intercontinental systems). The second is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows Russia to conduct aerial surveillance over the United States (and vice versa). If the Russians won’t keep their INF commitments — which benefit us — why should the United States continue other treaties that benefit them?
Russia’s new cruise missile is an incredibly dangerous threat to the United States and our allies. Unless we act now, Russia will only continue its campaign of aggression. Congress should heed Selva’s warning and make Russia pay for its actions. Only by increasing the costs of defying our country will we bring the geopolitical scales back to balance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.2a10ad617918
We believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO.” He also noted — to the best of his knowledge — that “they do not intend to return to compliance.”
In other words, the Russians have calculated that it costs them more to fulfill their treaty commitments than to break them. The only proper response to this provocation is to increase the costs and change Russia’s calculation.
The agreement in question is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which the Soviet Union and the United States signed in 1987 to eliminate an entire class of land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Reasons for the treaty date back to the late 1970s, when the Soviet Union deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles to Europe, reducing warning times and threatening to divide Europe from North America. NATO responded by deploying U.S. intermediate-range nuclear missiles in 1983. The increased tensions ultimately led to arms-control negotiations and the landmark INF Treaty.
From Vladimir Putin’s perspective, the treaty is a one-sided deal. Since only the United States and Russia are parties to the treaty, Russia’s neighbors may develop intermediate-range forces. For that reason, the Kremlin sees itself as surrounded by hostile countries. Moreover, land-based cruise missiles simply don’t pose the same threat to the United States — guarded as it is by two oceans.
As long as the United States refuses to back up its words with actions, violating the treaty is a low-risk, high-reward proposition for Russia. The missile deployment not only sows divisions between the United States and its allies, but also yields no consequences. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation with a group of senators that would direct the Pentagon to take four measures until Russia lives up to its obligations.
First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete.
Second, the bill would provide $500 million in funding for new defense capabilities that could neutralize whatever advantage Russia gains by violating the treaty. For instance, we could continue the deployment of the sea-based Standard Missile-3 on land-based sites. A new Russian cruise missile becomes much less valuable if the United States and its allies can easily shoot it down.
Third, the bill would direct the Pentagon to facilitate the transfer of cruise missiles among our allies. Even if the United States cannot keep these kinds of weapons itself, it can arrange business deals among our allies who can. The Polish government has been acquiring air-launched cruise missiles for some time; perhaps if we helped add intermediate-range ground-launched missiles to their arsenal, Russia might think twice about its reckless strategy.
Finally, the bill curtails funding for two treaties that Russia wants to preserve. The first is a possible extension of the New START Treaty, which limits each country’s strategic nuclear forces (such as longer-range, intercontinental systems). The second is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows Russia to conduct aerial surveillance over the United States (and vice versa). If the Russians won’t keep their INF commitments — which benefit us — why should the United States continue other treaties that benefit them?
Russia’s new cruise missile is an incredibly dangerous threat to the United States and our allies. Unless we act now, Russia will only continue its campaign of aggression. Congress should heed Selva’s warning and make Russia pay for its actions. Only by increasing the costs of defying our country will we bring the geopolitical scales back to balance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.2a10ad617918
escalation leads to counter-measures. proliferation to our allies leads to new weapons...
There is a couple $billion right there FOR WHAT??
Poland has air cruise, but the Russians only have land cruise, so give Poland land cruise too..
Cancel existing treaties while we're at it
and ABM systems all around for everybody (like drinks in a bar) - the next is war is on the house!!
There is a couple $billion right there FOR WHAT??
Poland has air cruise, but the Russians only have land cruise, so give Poland land cruise too..
Cancel existing treaties while we're at it
and ABM systems all around for everybody (like drinks in a bar) - the next is war is on the house!!