The 'Star Wars' Plan

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?