Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Get rid of the US ICBM Force

Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:04:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

So what exactly is the cba on prematurely retiring the minuteman III?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:11:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

I can definitely understand scaling it down, but why eliminate it entirely?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 4:02:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:11:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

I can definitely understand scaling it down, but why eliminate it entirely?

That's kinda my point: as a minuteman 3 hits end of life, fine retire it. But prematurely isn't saving money.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
It wouldn't matter because Trump lacks the intellectual fortitude. He still doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. And he had a perfect opportunity in the last debate to crush Clinton on Obama's first-strike position. But he couldn't deliver when asked about his position.

Nuclear deterrence is perhaps the most serious issue for the executive branch, and it is of no small significance that dovish William J. Perry was defense secretary during the Clinton administration's disastrous first term.

Whether Hillary's positions echo those of Obama's and the early Bill Clinton's will be decisive. Because if they do, the coming four years will be a very shaky ride, as America will continue the eight-year decline that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 5:21:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:19:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
It wouldn't matter because Trump lacks the intellectual fortitude. He still doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. And he had a perfect opportunity in the last debate to crush Clinton on Obama's first-strike position. But he couldn't deliver when asked about his position.

Nuclear deterrence is perhaps the most serious issue for the executive branch, and it is of no small significance that dovish William J. Perry was defense secretary during the Clinton administration's disastrous first term.

Whether Hillary's positions echo those of Obama's and the early Bill Clinton's will be decisive. Because if they do, the coming four years will be a very shaky ride, as America will continue the eight-year decline that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.

Not sure if you read the article but it's one of those 'we'll save billions...' without saying how. Decommissioning early before end of life is usually more expensive. The minute 3s are due to be retired in 2030 and there are currently 400 in service. There is a bid to replace but nothing currently set to replace meaning icbm's could be sunset prior to any future expenditure.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 5:52:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 5:21:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Not sure if you read the article but it's one of those 'we'll save billions...' without saying how. Decommissioning early before end of life is usually more expensive. The minute 3s are due to be retired in 2030 and there are currently 400 in service. There is a bid to replace but nothing currently set to replace meaning icbm's could be sunset prior to any future expenditure.
Of course I read the article. And the mendacious "we'll save billions" narrative is precisely what Bill Clinton set in motion when he took office in 1993 (the op-ed writer is his former defense secretary). Those first years of his administration were basically a declaration of war against the U.S. Armed Forces. By slashing defense and shifting attention from core geopolitical considerations to human rights missions in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and elsewhere, Clinton created more entanglements with less resources.

What I would entertain is the opposite course of action. Increase defense spending and renew stockpiles as we disentangle. We need more resources to do less, not less resources while we pledge to do more.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 6:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 5:52:29 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 5:21:41 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Not sure if you read the article but it's one of those 'we'll save billions...' without saying how. Decommissioning early before end of life is usually more expensive. The minute 3s are due to be retired in 2030 and there are currently 400 in service. There is a bid to replace but nothing currently set to replace meaning icbm's could be sunset prior to any future expenditure.
Of course I read the article. And the mendacious "we'll save billions" narrative is precisely what Bill Clinton set in motion when he took office in 1993 (the op-ed writer is his former defense secretary). Those first years of his administration were basically a declaration of war against the U.S. Armed Forces. By slashing defense and shifting attention from core geopolitical considerations to human rights missions in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and elsewhere, Clinton created more entanglements with less resources.

What I would entertain is the opposite course of action. Increase defense spending and renew stockpiles as we disentangle. We need more resources to do less, not less resources while we pledge to do more.

I don't disagree at all on the disentanglement and I saw clintons war on the military first hand. I was in basic in 92... separated in 98, erupted 02-04.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 7:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:11:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

I can definitely understand scaling it down, but why eliminate it entirely?

You get more bang for your buck by eliminating it entirely- only by eliminating do you take advantage of getting rid of fixed costs.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 7:15:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:02:08 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:11:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

I can definitely understand scaling it down, but why eliminate it entirely?

That's kinda my point: as a minuteman 3 hits end of life, fine retire it. But prematurely isn't saving money.

You save money by closing down facilities, not performing maintenance, cutting personnel, easing administrative burden. Maintaining an in service ICBM is not free.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 7:15:33 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:02:08 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:11:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

I can definitely understand scaling it down, but why eliminate it entirely?

That's kinda my point: as a minuteman 3 hits end of life, fine retire it. But prematurely isn't saving money.

You save money by closing down facilities, not performing maintenance, cutting personnel, easing administrative burden. Maintaining an in service ICBM is not free.

There are 3 known bases where icbms are houses. They are multi role bases, so they wouldn't be closed down. Maintenance is extremely low as the solid state propellants don't require continual refueling and there are no test flights. Maintenance is actually minimal. So savings, when compared to early scheduling, logistics, and then recommmissioning will result in a budget neutrality at best.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 8:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'm not really sympathetic to the "it will save the government money" part of his argument. Sure, it will save us money, but if it put us in more danger would anyone be in favor of it? It all hinges on whether or not eliminating ICBMs makes us more or less safe -- the probability that their effect is literally neutral is quite low.

But the other part of his case is so strong that it alone carries his point. Since ICBMs are stationary they are vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise enemy attack, which means there's pressure to "use them while you still have the chance" if you think you're under attack, increasing the probability that a false alarm would lead to devastation. This is not the case for submarines, which could launch a retaliatory strike without fear of being disabled in the strike.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 9:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
ICBMs are within your own territory. Given this, they are arguably more difficult for the enemy to destroy than nuclear submarines operating in or near the enemy's waters, especially with advances in Sonar and even LIDAR. The submarines could even be targeted and taken out of commission before the war broke out.
The bomber is arguably the most useless part of the nuclear triad. While the B-2 is stealthy, it has such a short range that targeting the nearby base where it's stationed could take it out, and its speed is sufficiently slow that it could be intercepted by a faster aircraft (furthermore, China's new "Quantum Radar" could render its stealth obsolete). The B-52 has no chance of nuking anybody but the most primitive opponent.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 9:41:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 9:16:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
ICBMs are within your own territory. Given this, they are arguably more difficult for the enemy to destroy than nuclear submarines operating in or near the enemy's waters, especially with advances in Sonar and even LIDAR. The submarines could even be targeted and taken out of commission before the war broke out.
The bomber is arguably the most useless part of the nuclear triad. While the B-2 is stealthy, it has such a short range that targeting the nearby base where it's stationed could take it out, and its speed is sufficiently slow that it could be intercepted by a faster aircraft (furthermore, China's new "Quantum Radar" could render its stealth obsolete). The B-52 has no chance of nuking anybody but the most primitive opponent.

I'd disagree on the b2s range... 6500 miles with no refuel and that's not taking the cruise missile range into account. B52, agreed.

The thing about the icbm that the others don't have is multiple warheads... meaning multiple targets from 1 launch. A surprise attach on those bases really isn't feasible as our detection capability on other icbms is near instantaneous while a sub launch is close to missile surface breach.

The whole point is a nuke fueled strike between states is highly unlikely.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 8:52:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm not really sympathetic to the "it will save the government money" part of his argument. Sure, it will save us money, but if it put us in more danger would anyone be in favor of it? It all hinges on whether or not eliminating ICBMs makes us more or less safe -- the probability that their effect is literally neutral is quite low.

But the other part of his case is so strong that it alone carries his point. Since ICBMs are stationary they are vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise enemy attack, which means there's pressure to "use them while you still have the chance" if you think you're under attack, increasing the probability that a false alarm would lead to devastation. This is not the case for submarines, which could launch a retaliatory strike without fear of being disabled in the strike.

The second argument prices the first. The second strike capacity of subs and bombers is so much greater than ICBM that the extra value ICBM add, while non zero, is slim. If literally anything that marginally increases national security is worth doing without respect to cost them we should just spend as much as we are able on national defense. We clearly don't do this, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of certain proposals against our valuation of the adequacy of our security.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:01:35 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 8:52:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm not really sympathetic to the "it will save the government money" part of his argument. Sure, it will save us money, but if it put us in more danger would anyone be in favor of it? It all hinges on whether or not eliminating ICBMs makes us more or less safe -- the probability that their effect is literally neutral is quite low.

But the other part of his case is so strong that it alone carries his point. Since ICBMs are stationary they are vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise enemy attack, which means there's pressure to "use them while you still have the chance" if you think you're under attack, increasing the probability that a false alarm would lead to devastation. This is not the case for submarines, which could launch a retaliatory strike without fear of being disabled in the strike.

The second argument prices the first. The second strike capacity of subs and bombers is so much greater than ICBM that the extra value ICBM add, while non zero, is slim. If literally anything that marginally increases national security is worth doing without respect to cost them we should just spend as much as we are able on national defense. We clearly don't do this, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of certain proposals against our valuation of the adequacy of our security.

True, but as far as preventing a nuclear war, it does not take much of an increase in safety in order to justify the 20 billion dollars the US currently spending maintaining its ICBMs. It's only 3 percent of the overall US military budget (but technically, it's not even included in the military budget). Like, even if having them decreases the chances of nuclear war by 1 percent, it's probably worth it. Given that the military's main function is to protect its citizens, and given that the greatest danger facing its citizens is the threat of instant and utter annihilation by nukes, it seems sensible to devote 3 percent of its current military budget to completing the nuclear triad, assuming that this increases safety.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:15:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

People just won't be happy until we're back to depending on volunteer fighting forces. Then the draft will get reinstated, and we'll be back to the old hippie protests and draft dodgers of the 1960's again; but to be fair, it's just a clean segway into the next series of complaints from the left. "Our military is too big, too powerful, we don't need all this protection for our citizens, cut military funding. We don't have a big enough military or strong enough defenses, now I'm being drafted, you should have done better with our military budget." Or worse yet, a military strike against our homeland or international assets of devastating proportions, "Why didn't we have a response to protect ourselves? I pay all these taxes but you can't defend us? What good are you?"

Quit driving the financial crisis to the most important part of our nation-state and do what actually needs to be done. Start retiring a bunch of these insane welfare programs we can't afford.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:19:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
It wouldn't matter because Trump lacks the intellectual fortitude. He still doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. And he had a perfect opportunity in the last debate to crush Clinton on Obama's first-strike position. But he couldn't deliver when asked about his position.

Nuclear deterrence is perhaps the most serious issue for the executive branch, and it is of no small significance that dovish William J. Perry was defense secretary during the Clinton administration's disastrous first term.

Whether Hillary's positions echo those of Obama's and the early Bill Clinton's will be decisive. Because if they do, the coming four years will be a very shaky ride, as America will continue the eight-year decline that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.

We don't know what Trump does with weapons. We DO know what Hillary does. She bombs Libya into oblivion, torches Waco, and never uses them to help CIA agents.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:19:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:01:35 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 8:52:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm not really sympathetic to the "it will save the government money" part of his argument. Sure, it will save us money, but if it put us in more danger would anyone be in favor of it? It all hinges on whether or not eliminating ICBMs makes us more or less safe -- the probability that their effect is literally neutral is quite low.

But the other part of his case is so strong that it alone carries his point. Since ICBMs are stationary they are vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise enemy attack, which means there's pressure to "use them while you still have the chance" if you think you're under attack, increasing the probability that a false alarm would lead to devastation. This is not the case for submarines, which could launch a retaliatory strike without fear of being disabled in the strike.

The second argument prices the first. The second strike capacity of subs and bombers is so much greater than ICBM that the extra value ICBM add, while non zero, is slim. If literally anything that marginally increases national security is worth doing without respect to cost them we should just spend as much as we are able on national defense. We clearly don't do this, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of certain proposals against our valuation of the adequacy of our security.

No, it really doesn't. No bases will close, maintenance is minimal, and staffing is less than a typical flight line support for 10 b52s.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:27:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

The op-ed seems to be arguing the following -

1. ICBMs are an unnecessary and costly redundancy given the existence of capable SLBMs
2. ICBMs have the problem of being vulnerable to a first strike, requiring a decision to launch or not launch to be made before an incoming attack might destroy the ICBM silos

I'm not so sure that I agree. Supposing that we had only SLBMs, would the decision to counter-attack still be required before enemy missiles reach their targets? Sure, the SLBMs would probably survive to retaliate, but a decision to retaliate may be required before enemy ICBMs reach their targets nonetheless. The federal government could be decapitated and unable to authorize a retaliatory strike following a nuclear attack.

As far as costs go, ICBMs are orders of magnitude less costly than SLBMs. The minuteman 3 is 7 million. An Ohio class submarine is 2 billion. The SLBMs could easily be viewed as the costly redundancy.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:17:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:19:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
It wouldn't matter because Trump lacks the intellectual fortitude. He still doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. And he had a perfect opportunity in the last debate to crush Clinton on Obama's first-strike position. But he couldn't deliver when asked about his position.

Nuclear deterrence is perhaps the most serious issue for the executive branch, and it is of no small significance that dovish William J. Perry was defense secretary during the Clinton administration's disastrous first term.

Whether Hillary's positions echo those of Obama's and the early Bill Clinton's will be decisive. Because if they do, the coming four years will be a very shaky ride, as America will continue the eight-year decline that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.

We don't know what Trump does with weapons. We DO know what Hillary does. She bombs Libya into oblivion, torches Waco, and never uses them to help CIA agents.
It would be so much easier to communicate with you were you not beholden to these ridiculous conspiracy theories. So let's dispense with Waco for now and try to communicate as adults.

Contrary to what you and others may believe, I am staunchly conservative on issues regarding national security, defense and foreign policy, and strongly support the position developed by Jeff Sessions, in which America maintains its first-strike option and refrains from engaging in future nonproliferation treaties. Disengagement from foreign entanglement -- disentanglement -- should be the primary goal for all future presidents. With that in mind, especially following the eight years of Obama, a Clinton presidency is particularly worrisome.

But when I see Trump, I see a man unworthy of the office. And I am yet to hear a single coherent message on any issue. He appears unable to present his views in either soundbites, slogans, tweets or punchlines.

Impotent rage is not a platform, nor is "I am not Hillary."
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:09:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 11:17:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:19:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.
It wouldn't matter because Trump lacks the intellectual fortitude. He still doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. And he had a perfect opportunity in the last debate to crush Clinton on Obama's first-strike position. But he couldn't deliver when asked about his position.

Nuclear deterrence is perhaps the most serious issue for the executive branch, and it is of no small significance that dovish William J. Perry was defense secretary during the Clinton administration's disastrous first term.

Whether Hillary's positions echo those of Obama's and the early Bill Clinton's will be decisive. Because if they do, the coming four years will be a very shaky ride, as America will continue the eight-year decline that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.

We don't know what Trump does with weapons. We DO know what Hillary does. She bombs Libya into oblivion, torches Waco, and never uses them to help CIA agents.
It would be so much easier to communicate with you were you not beholden to these ridiculous conspiracy theories. So let's dispense with Waco for now and try to communicate as adults.

Contrary to what you and others may believe, I am staunchly conservative on issues regarding national security, defense and foreign policy, and strongly support the position developed by Jeff Sessions, in which America maintains its first-strike option and refrains from engaging in future nonproliferation treaties. Disengagement from foreign entanglement -- disentanglement -- should be the primary goal for all future presidents. With that in mind, especially following the eight years of Obama, a Clinton presidency is particularly worrisome.

But when I see Trump, I see a man unworthy of the office. And I am yet to hear a single coherent message on any issue. He appears unable to present his views in either soundbites, slogans, tweets or punchlines.

Impotent rage is not a platform, nor is "I am not Hillary."

Then you haven't listened to his plans. He's been presenting Reaganomics via what he calls a 7 step plan. Her economic history is NAFTA, TPP, administration $19 trillion in debt, and secret speeches worth $600,000 with all recording devices confiscated before entry to said speech.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:19:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Trump 7 Steps-

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:27:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 12:27:40 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:02:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

The Op-Ed piece argues we should re-focus our efforts at maintaining nuclear deterrence, in part by dumping the ICBM force and relying on nuclear subs and bombers.

I argued a similar position in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I would love to hear this sort of question get asked in a presidential debate.

The op-ed seems to be arguing the following -

1. ICBMs are an unnecessary and costly redundancy given the existence of capable SLBMs
2. ICBMs have the problem of being vulnerable to a first strike, requiring a decision to launch or not launch to be made before an incoming attack might destroy the ICBM silos

I'm not so sure that I agree. Supposing that we had only SLBMs, would the decision to counter-attack still be required before enemy missiles reach their targets? Sure, the SLBMs would probably survive to retaliate, but a decision to retaliate may be required before enemy ICBMs reach their targets nonetheless. The federal government could be decapitated and unable to authorize a retaliatory strike following a nuclear attack.

As far as costs go, ICBMs are orders of magnitude less costly than SLBMs. The minuteman 3 is 7 million. An Ohio class submarine is 2 billion. The SLBMs could easily be viewed as the costly redundancy.

Were you in the af too? I argued from the b52 standpoint: a 10 bomber flight is more costly maintenance and operationally than all 400 icbms year over year.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:17:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Then you haven't listened to his plans. He's been presenting Reaganomics via what he calls a 7 step plan. Her economic history is NAFTA, TPP, administration $19 trillion in debt, and secret speeches worth $600,000 with all recording devices confiscated before entry to said speech.
Let me break that down, point by point.
1. This regards national security, defense, foreign policy -- not economics.
2. Reaganomics strongly involved free trade; and Reagan officials, remaining from the Bush-41 administration, were involved in crafting NAFTA as the culmination of the GATT round table.
3. Hillary Clinton does not have an "economic history" beyond what she achieved in elected office as a senator, with an interventionist voting record on trade (http://www.cato.org...).
4. Unless Trump dies and is resurrected as Socrates, I will not listen to any of his YouTube monologues. The debates are painful enough.
5. Give me something in writing that is applicable to nuclear policy, which is the topic in this thread.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:41:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:31:38 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/1/2016 4:17:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Then you haven't listened to his plans. He's been presenting Reaganomics via what he calls a 7 step plan. Her economic history is NAFTA, TPP, administration $19 trillion in debt, and secret speeches worth $600,000 with all recording devices confiscated before entry to said speech.
Let me break that down, point by point.
1. This regards national security, defense, foreign policy -- not economics.
2. Reaganomics strongly involved free trade; and Reagan officials, remaining from the Bush-41 administration, were involved in crafting NAFTA as the culmination of the GATT round table.
3. Hillary Clinton does not have an "economic history" beyond what she achieved in elected office as a senator, with an interventionist voting record on trade (http://www.cato.org...).
4. Unless Trump dies and is resurrected as Socrates, I will not listen to any of his YouTube monologues. The debates are painful enough.
5. Give me something in writing that is applicable to nuclear policy, which is the topic in this thread.

So who pulled the trigger on Iibya unprovoked? This administration or Donald Trump?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 4:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:31:38 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/1/2016 4:17:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Then you haven't listened to his plans. He's been presenting Reaganomics via what he calls a 7 step plan. Her economic history is NAFTA, TPP, administration $19 trillion in debt, and secret speeches worth $600,000 with all recording devices confiscated before entry to said speech.
Let me break that down, point by point.
1. This regards national security, defense, foreign policy -- not economics.
2. Reaganomics strongly involved free trade; and Reagan officials, remaining from the Bush-41 administration, were involved in crafting NAFTA as the culmination of the GATT round table.
3. Hillary Clinton does not have an "economic history" beyond what she achieved in elected office as a senator, with an interventionist voting record on trade (http://www.cato.org...).
4. Unless Trump dies and is resurrected as Socrates, I will not listen to any of his YouTube monologues. The debates are painful enough.
5. Give me something in writing that is applicable to nuclear policy, which is the topic in this thread.

Who dropped the ball on Benghazi? Hillary or Trump? Look...everyone tells me she has experience and has so many accomplishments. I'd love to know what great things she has done besides get people killed, participate in bombings of nation unprovoked, and manifest a list of scandals that I posted and was nailed for spam by the moderator. When I asked why it was spam, the moderatortold me it was too much information at one time and to break it up a little bit. Point? Her scandal list mmonopolizes a month's worth of debate space on ddo. Come on now...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:31:38 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/1/2016 4:17:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Then you haven't listened to his plans. He's been presenting Reaganomics via what he calls a 7 step plan. Her economic history is NAFTA, TPP, administration $19 trillion in debt, and secret speeches worth $600,000 with all recording devices confiscated before entry to said speech.
Let me break that down, point by point.
1. This regards national security, defense, foreign policy -- not economics.
2. Reaganomics strongly involved free trade; and Reagan officials, remaining from the Bush-41 administration, were involved in crafting NAFTA as the culmination of the GATT round table.
3. Hillary Clinton does not have an "economic history" beyond what she achieved in elected office as a senator, with an interventionist voting record on trade (http://www.cato.org...).
4. Unless Trump dies and is resurrected as Socrates, I will not listen to any of his YouTube monologues. The debates are painful enough.
5. Give me something in writing that is applicable to nuclear policy, which is the topic in this thread.

Her time in said "elected office" was full of? Even more scandal. She's never not been apart of FBI investigations, scandals, or "gates". It's never happened. I don't care that she can read a teleprompter and sound on point while Trump speaks openly. I want to know who is interesting in helping this country. She wants to bring in thousands upon thousands of Syrians that ISIS swore to infiltrate. On this I ask, so...why can we help others but can't afgord teachers, police, cut military benefits, and are blind to veterans on the street? She's more worried about Syrians than U.S. vets or even you. They never have money when it comes to the U.S., but if they need to build a road, school, or mosque in the Middle East the money shows up like magic. That crap has to stop. She's going to continue that crop. At least I know Trump will try to help US. He's been giving this same schpeel since the 1980's.

Finally, if you refuse to watch the video, then your claim that he has no plan is a farse.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:15:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 4:45:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Who dropped the ball on Benghazi? Hillary or Trump? Look...everyone tells me she has experience and has so many accomplishments. I'd love to know what great things she has done besides get people killed, participate in bombings of nation unprovoked, and manifest a list of scandals that I posted and was nailed for spam by the moderator.
Spamming is commercial; the moderator should have labeled it flooding. But let's avoid the nitpicking and get to the matter at hand.

I don't disagree with the assessment that Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate or that her career is riddled with controversy. What I am looking for is a Trump supporter who can present a coherent version of his positions on, e.g., nuclear policy.

At least I know Trump will try to help US. He's been giving this same schpeel since the 1980's.
Your Yiddish is off key, schlemiel. But if I am not mistaken, you're saying that Trump has stayed on message for 30-plus years? That is just strange on so many levels.

Finally, if you refuse to watch the video, then your claim that he has no plan is a farse.
I dismissed it because it related to an economic plan, which makes it off topic (don't take the Socrates spoof seriously). I am here looking to debate nuclear policy.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:15:31 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/1/2016 4:45:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Who dropped the ball on Benghazi? Hillary or Trump? Look...everyone tells me she has experience and has so many accomplishments. I'd love to know what great things she has done besides get people killed, participate in bombings of nation unprovoked, and manifest a list of scandals that I posted and was nailed for spam by the moderator.
Spamming is commercial; the moderator should have labeled it flooding. But let's avoid the nitpicking and get to the matter at hand.

I don't disagree with the assessment that Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate or that her career is riddled with controversy. What I am looking for is a Trump supporter who can present a coherent version of his positions on, e.g., nuclear policy.

At least I know Trump will try to help US. He's been giving this same schpeel since the 1980's.
Your Yiddish is off key, schlemiel. But if I am not mistaken, you're saying that Trump has stayed on message for 30-plus years? That is just strange on so many levels.

Finally, if you refuse to watch the video, then your claim that he has no plan is a farse.
I dismissed it because it related to an economic plan, which makes it off topic (don't take the Socrates spoof seriously). I am here looking to debate nuclear policy.

He has. It's called consistancy. It makes it easy to predict what he thinks and will do. She bounces around on policy like a ping pong ball, so where she stood yesterday on an issue is not where she stands on the issue tomorrow. I want to know what someone actually thinks off the prompter. Hell, I canread a speech or a prompter. You might as well elect me.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...