Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Heres an article I saw at the BBC:

You can read the rest here.

So what are your opinions on this?

Even if you hated the Phantom Menace, you have to admit that George Lucas's "Son of Star Wars" is better that George W Bush's

http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/freak3.gif

It's fair enough, really. Most of the objections are, ultimately, jealousy. Justified jealousy maybe, but jealousy nevertheless.

Raz did you just call me a Freak????

Oh, that one means freak, does it? Well, they all die the same...

No, that was meant to be a confused face. I thought it looked funny anyway.

Ush, you might want to read the second paragraph again.

I say: the more SW the better.

The ABMT is dead in the water and does not actually bar the Star Wars project.

Why is it dead in the water? It was signed by the US and Russia.

It was signed on false pretences, has been vipklated by both sides ever since, and makes no mention of orbital platforms or laser shields. It was NEVER intended as permanent legislation.

The use of ther term Star Wars was less forgivable, and GL should have won that case.

This isn't the only obstacle the US have to overcome. They still need to gain support from the International Community, as they need to install monitor stations in other countries, so that they can detect the missiles.

Well, they HAVE our support. And you will be surprirsed what more support they can get.

Actually the UK hasn't decided to allow the monitor stations.

Althougth the Torys say they are all for it (if they get in), the PM hasn't hasn't given permission yet.

I really hope they don't, as the UK would then be a viable target for a possible missile attack from 'rogue states'.

We already are such a target.

TB has agreed to co-operate, we agreed it in exchange for them supporting the EDF. Itt's a done deal.

What does the EdF have anything to do with the US? Its a EU thing.

By having the sensors, it would put us at a greater risk of attack.
I hope the PM has *really* thought this through...

An overly powerful EDF will weaken Amercian concerns in thatr area- AND NATO, a vital part of our defencwe policy.

No-one can afford to be that insular any more. And we have very little ground for refusing to allow the sensors.

I don't think allowing them to install the sensors will affect their effort in the Balkans.

Don't you care that the UK will be totally unprotected from missiles that try to blow up the sensors???

First of all, we have treay obligations with the Americans. We MUST help them. They help us enough.

Secondly- you have been mis-informed. The planned shield WILL protect us. That was part of the deal. All US allies will be covered.

First, that is no excuse. The obligations can paid in other ways.

Second, the UK will NOT be protected, according to the BBC anyway (look at bold text)

A treaty is like a friendship. We would be pretty nasty to mess them around on this.
And they might reciprocate. We do far better working togeher than arguing.

And the Americans have PROMISED that allies will be covered. You don't have to trust them, of course, but the theory is sound.

Just on the most basically practical point, even if you do not believe their altruism- they will WANT to cover these bases!

Besides, those interceptors (if the bloody things work, which is the main problem) are easily deployable worldwide.

I can't help but feel that Bush does nothing but think up this crap to try to get people to rally behind him..It seems to me that he's all about getting people up in arms to make his administration look good. A razzle dazzle flashy show and a media ploy.

I wouldn't be suprised if they're taking notes from Wag the Dog.

Norway is of course against this as everything else, seems like the Norwegians politicians plan is to oppose everything they can except own agendas. Like peace negotiations in the Middle East... and we all know how that went. I dont know why we(Norway) spitting millions uppon millions of $ into the peace process in the Middle east let them rip each other appart. And for the Us defence system I say go US do it , dont bother what others think, never did so before so why start it now. I am very much for that program. Just imagine what those rouge countries can do with nuclear weapons.

i think bush is dangerous

hes a warmonger just like his daddy


i saw this documentary on iraq and in the lobby of the biggest hotel in bagdad they have a mural (i think thats the right spelling) in the lobby of george bush(the dad) with some words about how he must die
and when clinton took over they were going to change it but never got round to it.

but now george w is in charge they have decided to keep it there.

This morning's Telegraph has plenty more on the subject.

It confirms:

1. Russia has pretty much accepted that previous treaties will have to be re-negotiated

2. European leaders are coming around to the US's feeling. Both major parties in the UK this morning back the American move.

3. If the sensor is built at Fylingdales, the system WILL protect Britain and Western Europe. As I suspected, the interceptors don;t have to be in Britain- the kill vehicles are orbital, in any case.

4. The major opponent is China- the new system will be useless against Russia's arsenal anyway, as it can only handle limited strikes. That said, Russia has reasonably pointed out that if the '72 treaty is binned it's going to be a LOT of work to work out replacements. Both sides are indicating that they are willing to do this work- which will no doubt lead to all sort of poltiical wrangling.

5. FAR MORE IMPORTANT- if this shiled works, Bush has offered to reduce the US nuclear arsenal by about three quarters. SURELY that is worth any small objections?

Anyhow, who can deny the Us's right to defend itself, or oppose a move that MAY lead to the end of nuclear weapons as a threat.

The 1972 treatty was created at a time when deterrent was an acceptable alternative. WIth the rise of rogue states, this is no longer the case.

Now, if you are worried about the US and it's treaties, worry about Kyoto. Now, they may have valid points in rejecting Kyoto. And I personally am not a great beliver in global warming theories, what with a lot of recent evidence bneating it down.

But the fact remains that the US signed that treaty very recently, agreed to uphold it's principles, and then dumped it unilaterally without referring to anyone, after everyone else has done so much effort to make it work.

It iis very difficult to trust people who will so quickly go back on their written word. They should have brought their grievances to everyone else's atention an re-negotiated, not just dumped it.


Hope this has made a few things clear!

I don't think it will reduce the nuclear weapons as a threat, as countries like China will just increase their Nuclear Arsenals, incase they need to defend themselves.

BTW, how can you not believe in Global Warming?? We've already seen record floods in the UK, due to the polar caps melting.

I could go through all the science for you, which clearly proves that CO2 will cause global warming.....its basic GCSE.

That flood evidence is non-existent.

More scientists reject global warming than accept it. The world is NOT warming. Some studies show it is cooling!

The science is good, but the practical application patheitc. It's shows that man's input into the CO2 equation is so minute as to be negligible.

Bottom line is, the whole thing is so totally unproven and full of holes, it is criminal to present it as fact.

So why do you think the floods in England are occuring? They haven't been this bad since records began.

Conclusions for global warming can be made by whats going around you. The global warming theory said the polar ice caps would melt....which is happening now. The theory said temperature and weather would be affected, which it is.....and so on.

The Polar Ice caps mah not be melting, and if they are it is entirely consistent with cuyclic patterns

It was WARMER in the 13th century than it is now. Climate change is circular!

The floods have been caused by bad land management. It hasn't actually been proportionate to extra rainfall.

And the theory's guess on temperatures are wrong!

I'm sorry, Raz, but the theory is NOT PROVEN, and that is the end of it. The debate is still raging. Papers are full of info about some new proof that Global Warming is non -existent. NASA now says it is non-existent, as does the ESA. Our met office is inconclusive. I don';t know about the States.

This is NOT to say that environmental issues should be ignored. But if you are so certain about Global Warming being real, you have probably been duped. An open mind in this case would CERTAINLY not commit.

So what you're saying is that if we keep pumping CO2 into our atmosphere, it won't make an ounce of difference?

Somehow I doubt that.

The fact is that our CO2 contribution is almost negligible- like a fraction of a fraction of a percent of that which occurs naturally. And there is no evidence that usch a small change affects anything.

Eventually it will make a difference, of course, but there's no point getting things out of proportion.

Where does all this CO2 occur naturally....it can't be as much as we are pumping.

Have you got any figures?

PLANTLIFE!

Have you ANY idea how much CO2 is given out by simple vegatation? Far more than we could ever hope to achieve until we have tarmacced the planet.

According to my old school science teacher, plants take in CO2 and give out oxygen.

I can give you the forumulae if you like.

DEAD vegetation, Raz... that;s why those big hyrdo dams in Brazil have turned out to be more polluting than the coal statiosn they replaced- the dead vegetation caused more CO2 than the coal did.

Look, I'm not defending a dead horse here. It's going to take more than secondary school science to beat this.

THAT is no excuse to pump out extra CO2, when we know what CO2 can do.

There is nothing we can do (that I know of) to stop dead veg giving out CO2, but we can control the man-made CO2.....which (unless you can otherwise prove) IS significant.

What sort of statement is that? It's for YOU to prove that it's dangerous, not for me to prove it isn't! Blimey! BASIC scientific principle.

If it IS harmless (which seems likely), then the benefits industry provides should not be ingored. It;s not as if we are producing CO2 just fior the hell of it, it's all for good reason. People's lives depend on some of these industries.

You want me to prove to you how CO2 can cause global warming?

Hang on.....I'll go fetch my school science book....

Looks like this one has gone private... though please, other people feel free to comment!

Bumpty. This looks interesting. Did you get that book Raz?

RC, I was actually being sarcastic. CO2 causing Global Warming, or the Greenhouse effect as we were taught, is basic GCSE.

Just pick up a one of those Science books and it will go thorough it for you.

Well brainiac, those THEORIES have been questioned of late by various scientific bodies who are concerned that the CO2 theory may be errornious and that reductions in the global CO2 level may actually do more hard that good.

I don't know which theory is right and which is wrong, whcih is fine because even the scientists can't agree right now...

GCSE's? Oh yeah, the simple form of GCE's!!!

I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of those new theories? I just hope they weren't funded by the Bush administration

I'll have to dig em out. Basically, it is something to do with vegitation development in the Amazon or someplace and how cutting global C02 would cause so many trees and plants in that area, which covers a fair sized part of the planet, to die from not recieving enough CO2. This would lead to a decrease in the worlds oxygen supply and other life would suffer.

I can't remember what this had to do with global warming, but it sounded pretty catastophic on it's own.

I think it was on Discovery or something. I'll look.

They would die if there is zero CO2 (although plants can survive with Oxygen aswell), the plan as I understand it is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced to a more suitable level. Although since the US decided not to implement Koyoto the EU decrease in CO2 won't really make much difference IMO.

I think the point was that the ecosystems had addapted to produce enough oxygen for the way the planet is populated, amounts of CO2, etc now and a rapid drop off would find them starved of vaulable CO2 to sustain themselves. Most plants deprived of CO2 in high enough quantities will die. Less trees, etc would mean less oxygen production which could lead to a mass extinction, including us...

I think my basic point that it is an error to auotmatically assume that the 'greenhouse' lobby is definitely correct in this area is an error before they work the damn science out now stands...

...and like I said you won't get the science right until you see the results, which would be too late.

Anyway, no-one is saying that ALL CO2 should be stopped. Only countries that produce TOO MUCH CO2 should cut down.

And like RC and myself have said, shutting down the CO2 production may do more harm than good- certainly as much evidence either way, so there is still no reason to back one side.

I think the point was, on that bit, that the production would have to be cut slowly in a reverse of the ramp up in CO2 to allow the global eccology to re-adjust.

Still looking for the other bit on GW though.

Ushgarak, if you could, explain to me why TOO MUCH CO2 is good and a moderate amount is bad.

I agree that too much is a bad thing, I was merely commenting on the GW thoeries.

Ush?

As far as we can prove, Raz, there is no such thing as 'TOO' much.

Meanwhile, the economic problems involved in cutting production will alkmost certainly xost some lives and badly affect many thousnads (or more) of others.

You do NOT leap itno these things on the off-chance. People's lives are at stake; they may be at stake the other way as well but you must PROVE it.

Peoples lives are NOT at stake. There IS such a thing as too much, if we have too much CO2 it creates the greenhouse affect i.e. reflecting heat back down to earth, ineffect causing global warming, leading to melting icecaps and so forth.

THAT IS NOT PROVEN! Absolutely it is not, regardless of what you say. Scientists far more qualfiied than us have said so, and the debate continues.

THERE IS NO PROVEN 'TOO' MUCH!

The economic issues at stake with cutting CO2 production in the way suggested by Kyoto, though, are very real and affect many many lives.

Seriosuly, Raz, there are huge counter-arguments against all this that you seem to dismiss out of hand.

Hmm..its funny how these "Scientists far more qualfiied than us" didn't say anything when the Koyoto was being signed.

Also a scientists view can be changed if he/she was paid the right amount of money.

Unless you can disprove the theory that CO2 DOES cause greenhouse effects, don't tell me I'm being arrogant.

Cutting CO2 levels doesn't have to result in unemployment. These "super-scientists" could help develop methods other than those that cause lots of CO2 emmissions.

BTW, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse producing gas.

Closing Topic as this debate will never end