It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia urges US to avoid space arms race (NATO running Amok)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Anyway lets get away from WHO is doing it and think about whether it's a good thing or not. My answer would be the same regardless of whether it was America, France or Russia wanting to weaponise space. In the end everyone will probably have to follow the lead of whoever does it first, so who is doing it first won't really matter down the track.


Some weapons have been successfully banned, right? Why should this kind be different?

I don't see France wanting to weaponise space. Why would they?




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
while it is true we never agreed to put weapons other than nuclear weapons in space, it is not a good idea to put any type of weapon in orbit.
What if it fails and comes crashing down after its orbit decayed, if there was anything radioactive in it would spread accross the globe.


You do realize there are already hundreds.......thousands of satallites already in orbit don't you?
You don't see people walking around worried about radioactive satallites crashing down on them do you?




What's all this weapons in space stuff really about?
They're really being put there to save us from those three asteroids Aussie Bloke was warning us about!!








kidding of course



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Trent
Anyway lets get away from WHO is doing it and think about whether it's a good thing or not. My answer would be the same regardless of whether it was America, France or Russia wanting to weaponise space. In the end everyone will probably have to follow the lead of whoever does it first, so who is doing it first won't really matter down the track.


Some weapons have been successfully banned, right? Why should this kind be different?

I don't see France wanting to weaponise space. Why would they?


I don't think it should be any different and I'm against the weaponisation of space but once America or someone else invents an effective space weapon that gives them a military advantage everyone and his dog will want the same capabilities and don't kid yourself they will get it. I named those countries so people could think about whether it would be such a good idea if it wasn't their country doing it, which is valid since regardless of who does it first all will follow. So we have to start to think about whether it's a good idea for countries to build even more powerful weapons than they already own or make the MAD doctrine obsolete because of new technology. There might also be weapons developed that we can not even dream of if countries start to pour resources into putting weapons up there.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Trent]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

What's all this weapons in space stuff really about?
They're really being put there to save us from those three asteroids Aussie Bloke was warning us about!!



kidding of course


But wouldnt that be Planetary Defence instead of national defence?


I could see it happenning using this as a front. The US wouldnt be breaking any treaties if our gov used this as an excuse.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
I am with Russia on this, but shooting down American weapons is just going to make the arrogant american public rush behind their government calling for Russian blood.


I am an American and I am not arrogant. So I find your statement offensive. Thats quite an attack, some may even call it personal, which of course is against the TOS of these forums.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc

If we have too much defense it might make us look like a threat, and nations might turn against us, it's already kind of happening.

Hahah yeah lemme get some more crisp yummy Freedom Fries.

Nah other countries will whine as usual but when it boils down to it, wouldn't you rather be on the good side of the biggest baddest bully on the block? Do I really need to make another France reference here? "Oh crap the Germans!"
The US has always done and will always do what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. Sometimes to get what we want, we have to make other countries happy too.. but we still get what we want. When the cards are called, our nation has demonstrated time and time again that we really dont give a rats' about what goes on outside our borders unless it's caught our interest.


If there is one lesson in history that should have been learned its dont piss off the Russians. WW II Russias military was in a hellish state until about 1943 and even before that they fought and terribly too. They fought with pitchforks and sickles. But when they get together things do not go good. If a war were to start the first thing that would happen is the Russians would start fileding # we dont know about (the U.S. aint the only place wit secret weapons). And you know how they would accomplish this, MASSIVE public support. In several months production would fly up to meet demand and the volunteers would pour in. In short, NEVER question Russias might in a bad situation.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
The US has signed a treaty that does not allow us to send nuke weapons into space. Is this another treaty that Bush and co. are just going to snub? Seems likely.





Who said anything about nukes? You are blowing this way out of proportion. If the US puts weapons in space it is about an anti-missle system. This has been around since Regan was President. He was the one who started the whole "Star Wars" idea. I find it very coincidental that this is now becoming topic of discussion again as anothe rStar Wars movie is out in theatres.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Forget about Russia. Putnik Mr ex KGB is thinking in the past, but the U.S. sends Russia 600 million U.S. dollars each year.

Seems to me Mr Putnik even after his KGB days knows a Gift Horse. The problem I do see is Oil and Iran can supply Russia with all they need.

Dallas


apc

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

If there is one lesson in history that should have been learned its dont piss off the Russians.

That's just the thing... the Russians arent going to get pissed. Maybe some of them, just like some Americans squeek about our actions in Iraq, but the political interactions between our two nations has always been one elaborate chess match. Each of us knows what the other is going to do several moves in advance, and we act accordingly. Russia is going to take what appears to be a very strong stance against our placement of platforms in space, however it will just be their low bid in the negotiations. Same thing happened to allow us to have a missile defense system in the first place.. we made concessions in exchange for renegotiating the treaties. This will be no different. We'll probably give them a break on some of their loans or something to that effect. But this will not escalate to conflict.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by apc]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Very well said apc. We are all dealing with a still dangerous commodity. I think putin see's Bushs' weakness and want's to capitalize before its time for Mr Bush to step aside. Putnik has to do it now.

Through Iran nuc ambitions and/or their Oil, Russia's Putnik (Mr KGB) is balls ahead and plays the part knowing that Bush will fall aside if Putnik whispers and not yells.

The sooner the Bush era ends and a smartly-strong Pres is elected than we can sleep ever so slightly easier..for now

Dallas


apc

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I really do hope it's simply the Bush family we are dealing with. If Hillary is up to bat next, we're totally screwed. Friggin' Nazis.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456


Who said anything about nukes?


Apparently you have not done anyresearch on the weaponization of space. Nukes would be the first weapons installment. All other 'space weaponry' is just theory. Nukes are actually capable and have been shown to be effective as ICBM's. Not only that, but for missle defence, the line of thought was to dispers little nuke bomblets in order to take out a missle in space. Granted it is only one of the ways discussed to make a missle defence shield, but I would say I definatly am NOT blowing anything out of proportion.


APC,
At least if Hillary got in she would have the balls to hunt down OBL and not start a war with someone who didnt have squat to do with 9-11. However, this is a discussion about space weaponry. Can we keep the politics in PTS please?


apc

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

...this is a discussion about space weaponry.

Actually Hillary Clinton as president would directly involve the topic of weaponry given the underlying factors involved. And no her job would not be to go to war, her job would be play humanitarian to make a lot of the other countries like us again so the next pres could easily use our newly built space weapons platforms to secure more global resources. She is very much relevant...



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
She is very much relevant...




Yeah, she is relevant if you are not trying to turn this into a political bashing contest
Which, I might add is exactly what your post was.............


Agian, take it to PTS where it belongs please. The rest of us dont want a Right wing whining match on this discussion.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Then STOP whining. Thats all you ever do.


apc

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Yeah, she is relevant if you are not trying to turn this into a political bashing contest
Which, I might add is exactly what your post was.............
Agian, take it to PTS where it belongs please. The rest of us dont want a Right wing whining match on this discussion.

Ahahahaha sorry but uhm no it actually was not a political comment *cough* this is a conspiracy board, right? Hint Hint Nudge Nudge Wink Wink
If you dont like the words you read, dont read them.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Then STOP whining. Thats all you ever do.


Jesus. We try and have a decent conversation and debate here and schmucks like you and apc ruin it for everyone. Please, stop posting and go back to the bronx (zoo preferably)



Yet another thread ruined by the thoughts of right wingers.

[edit on 5/22/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by csulli456
Then STOP whining. Thats all you ever do.


Jesus. We try and have a decent conversation and debate here and schmucks like you and apc ruin it for everyone. Please, stop posting and go back to the bronx (zoo preferably)



Yet another thread ruined by the thoughts of right wingers.

[edit on 5/22/05 by Kidfinger]


Thank you for saying what everyone should think.


apc

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Yeah uhm hate to break it to yah there sonny boy but Im not a right winger... once again if you want to interpret a response made in a conspirative sense as being a political statement, be my guest but you'll be alone with the rest of your chummy inaptness.

My statements have been directly related to the topic of weapons platforms in space, being that such a program would correlate to an 'Agenda' on a much grander scale than your own.

So please, if you're going to try and bring submission in those who you dont agree with, do so on your own time. Preferably when youre strapped to a tit suckling away. Otherwise, please bring about conjecture and debate, not attempts to declare other people as political deviants. Running your mouth [fingers?] doesnt really work, obviously.

> Kidfinger allow me to point out your hypocrisy.
My statement:

I really do hope it's simply the Bush family we are dealing with. If Hillary is up to bat next, we're totally screwed. Friggin' Nazis.

Which anyone with half a brain would have realized I was referring to BOTH parties as 'Nazis.'

Your response:


At least if Hillary got in she would have the balls to hunt down OBL and not start a war with someone who didnt have squat to do with 9-11. However, this is a discussion about space weaponry. Can we keep the politics in PTS please?

Need I say more?



[edit on 22-5-2005 by apc]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc

> Kidfinger allow me to point out your hypocrisy.
My statement:

I really do hope it's simply the Bush family we are dealing with. If Hillary is up to bat next, we're totally screwed. Friggin' Nazis.

Which anyone with half a brain would have realized I was referring to BOTH parties as 'Nazis.'


Anyone with half a brain can see it for what it is. An attempt to cause more political strife on a thread which it does NOT belong. Lets continue shall we?



Your response:


At least if Hillary got in she would have the balls to hunt down OBL and not start a war with someone who didnt have squat to do with 9-11. However, this is a discussion about space weaponry. Can we keep the politics in PTS please?

Need I say more?





Ha! You spouted all that garbage and you validated what I said!
Not to quick are you?
No apc, you dont need to say any more. Your intellect is blazing the path for all to be enlightened......................



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join