Michele Bachmann: Foreign Policy Is President Obama's 'Worst Act'

the outer space treaty already restricts the use of space for the deployment of weapons, but hey, why bother pinning that on nixon, lets just blame Obama.

the outer space treaty already restricts the use of space for the deployment of weapons, but hey, why bother pinning that on nixon, lets just blame Obama.

An anti-missile system is a defense system, not an offensive weapon system.

it also requires the same restricted technologies as an offensive weapon system. In otherwords, there is no difference.

And the technologies have changed dramatically in the past 40 years making the treaty irrelevant.

so if the treaty is irrelevant (there is MORE to it than just the restriction on placing weapons in space), then it should be renounced by all parties, not just one party.

See how the US would like it if china and russia put up weapons in orbit.

You see, it GOES BOTH WAYS.

The treaty was written for another age. When there were only 4 or 5 nations with nuclear weapons..only 2 of those 5 with huge inventories.

The strategy of mutually assured destruction kept the two big guys in line, nobody would dare launch a first strike if the final outcome would be their own incineration as well. An anti-missile system would break that balance, allowing one nation to strike first while denying its opponent a retalitory strike. MAD worked well for 50 years and still works well for for the US and Russia, but it's the other players who have arrived that's the concern.

Today's anti-missile systems cannot defend against the Russians with their thousands of warheads. Its express purpose is to defend against attack from nations with only a few number of missiles through immediate post launch interception, before they can enter space.

hmmm

ok, so Reagan spent billions of dollars before we gave up on it because it just wouldn't work.

Then bush spent another 60 billion dollars on it, before the next administration gave up on it because it could never work,

So exactly when do we just give up on it.

Oh wait, never mind, I should be out of here before the next crackpot republican tries again and spends another 60 to 100 billion dollars on it, or even more.

And yet again, the treaty is for A LOT MORE than just weapons proliferation.

And why are nations who are potential adversaries so rabidly opposed to its deployment if it doesn't work?

Russia doesn't care about the US wasting that money, they are however, against the placement of a radar installation on its doorstep that gives the US a strategic advantage that it doesn't have.

What do you think the US would do if russia said, we will put a similar radar installation along the US border in Canada? or along the US border in Mexico? It would be the same thing.

the outer space treaty already restricts the use of space for the deployment of weapons

Not true. The Outer Space Treaty forbids putting WMDs on orbit, not conventional weapons.

it also requires the same restricted technologies as an offensive weapon system. In otherwords, there is no difference.

Again, making it an offensive weapon in and of itself wouldn't necessarily make it restricted according to the Outer Space Treaty.

The treaty was written for another age.

True, but irrelevant. The reason nations cite a treaty that was written in 1969 is because nothing more appropriate has been written in the meantime. It may be ambiguously written and overcome by events, but it's all we have.

As far as Obama's foreign policy goes... I don't have a major problem with it.

No. If push came to shove, a radar system that close to them can be neutralized by their military in a New York second. They are against missile defense because they know the technology works.

circled thrice,

if you know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that the only effective BMD system would be a laser based system, and the energy required for that would be akin to putting a massive nuclear reactor in orbit. It would CLEARLY be in violation of the outer space treaty.

lamp,

that in itself would be a declaration of war and would be an indication of an impending attack. Guess tactics is not one of your strong points.

that in itself would be a declaration of war and would be an indication of an impending attack. Guess tactics is not one of your strong points.

That's why I said "If push comes to shove" ...events would have already got beyond the point of no return

that was written in 1969

Oops... I meant '67.

if you know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that the only effective BMD system would be a laser based system, and the energy required for that would be akin to putting a massive nuclear reactor in orbit. It would CLEARLY be in violation of the outer space treaty.

Mmmm... nah. I'm not going to get into a debate about this, because I have a feeling you'll have me going back and forth all night. You're right about the whole laser thing. With current technology, it's not a practical solution. But it's not impossible to shoot a bullet with a bullet, and that's the technology that we seem to be developing.

I think the real question is whether it's worth the money we're spending for the amount of security such a system would actually provide.

circled,

there are different parts to the outerspace treaty that were ratified at different times.

And actually it may not be impossible, but it is EXTREMELY IMPLAUSIBLE.

there are different parts to the outerspace treaty that were ratified at different times.

Nope... incorrect. 10 Oct 67, the treaty commonly known as "The Outer Space Treaty" entered into force. There were four other major space treaties signed in the 60s and 70s that clarified certain elements of the Outer Space Treaty.

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/treaties.html

And actually it may not be impossible, but it is EXTREMELY IMPLAUSIBLE.

It's not extremely implausible. We've done it... several times. What's implausible is the notion of putting a nuclear reactor on orbit to create laser beams.

Again... I think the real argument is whether it's worth the money for the amount of security. Alright, I wanna be done now. Have a good night.

it's been done several times when BOTH parts of the test were in very well known situations, in otherwords, both the target and the interceptor were in extremely well known trajectories.

THAT is the implausible part. That the interceptor will know the exact trajectory. That is the reason WHY the US demanded that the radar station be installed in eastern europe, because that is the only way to even remotely be able to detect the trajectory. The missile is a ballistic vehicle, and you need to know all aspects of all the launch phases in order to be able to do that. THIS is the IMPLAUSIBLE part.

As for the outerspace treaty, the other treaties are amendments to the outer space treaty, they were not new treaties, and they were not to clarify the outer space treaty, they extended it.

The main problem though is that if the US were to leave the treaty, then other countries would also leave the treaty, and would be able to do the EXACT same thing. So in the interest of the US creating what would be at best, a minimal security improvement, would end up creating a MASSIVE degradation in national security because now other countries could do the EXACT SAME THING.

These are red herrings, not actual issues to debate. A debate should be based on facts and actual circumstances and not presented by political has-beens who cannot participate without tossing out these fish.

Bachmann is hardly the foreign policy expert much less a real tax attorney.

Smearing President Obama on policies that he did not generate also does not line up as factual and further gives the left ammunition that the right is under-educated in almost every arena.

it's been done several times when BOTH parts of the test were in very well known situations, in otherwords, both the target and the interceptor were in extremely well known trajectories.

THAT is the implausible part.

Yeah, see, I get all that. But the fact that we've demonstrated a capability in controlled situations suggests we'll have a plausible capability in uncontrolled situations at some future date. What started this whole sidebar was this...

if you know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that the only effective BMD system would be a laser based system, and the energy required for that would be akin to putting a massive nuclear reactor in orbit. It would CLEARLY be in violation of the outer space treaty.

So apparently, shooting a warhead with another one is implausible (even though we've done it), but putting a laser-generating nuclear reactor on orbit - which incidentally wouldn't be a violation of the '67 treaty either - is somehow more plausible.

As for the outerspace treaty, the other treaties are amendments to the outer space treaty, they were not new treaties, and they were not to clarify the outer space treaty, they extended it.

Dude, you're making my head hurt. You're wrong, ok. I mean, if you're determined to be right, then fine... tell yourself you're right. But you're wrong. Also, writing "the other treaties" and then "they were not new treaties..." is a little goofy. They're either "other treaties" (yes), or they're "amendments to an existing treaty" (no)... can't be both.

Alright, I wanna be done now. Happy travels.

The plausibility only depends on the predictability of those parts that are not controllable in real life. And THERE is the problem.

This about it this way. you are 5000 miles away from a target and you need to fly a missile interceptor that needs to reach that target. Ok sounds simple. Well even todays missiles aren't even that accurate, but they don't need to be, they have nuclear warheads. But now, you take that target, and it is now moving, and that movement can be partially predicted, but other parts of it can't be. What is now must hit the target say with about the same accuracy as a dime, but now you have to do it with varying wind conditions, with a guidance system on the missile itself that isn't accurate, AND you need to be able to measure those deviations. Now with the way that these measurements need to be made, you have to actually have higher accuracy closer to the launch sight than the target, which is the exact opposite of what we have in real life.

THIS is the implausible part.

As for the outer space treaty, why don't you download it and read it, it is available in 7 languages.

Right... again, I get it. This might come as a shock to you, but I don't need to be schooled on this subject. I'm aware of the challenges involved, and I'm not sure it's worth the investment - in actual dollars or international political capital - to overcome them. Any further debate between you and I is going to get into semantics, and I've already devoted way more time to this than I originally intended.

You misspoke. I corrected you. Proper responses could include: "I stand corrected" or "Oh @!$%#, I must have mis-read that" or "Hey, I didn't catch that. Thanks for the clarification" and if you wanted to lob back you could even follow up some of those phrases with things like, "however, that's not germane to this debate" or "but that doesn't negate my larger point, which is..." or "true, but the real issue is..."

I realize you're a special little newsvine debater and everything, but you're not automatically required to be right at all costs on every single point, 'k? When you try to do that you just end up sounding disjointed and self-contradictory... ie - those treaties aren't treaties (wtf?)

And really, this seed is about Bachmann saying something stupid again, which really isn't news at this stage anyway. Nevertheless, you and I are definitely "off topic" with this nonsense.

As for the outer space treaty, why don't you download it and read it, it is available in 7 languages.

Yeah, I know. I'm the one who provided it to you in a link in #5.16. Tell ya what, instead of advising me to read it, why don't you read it? And if you have read it, try comprehending it. Because you're a little confused about a few things.

I've had the outer space treaty in my hands for several years now, along with the relevant codes for 6 countries that relate to the code as well as several years worth of legal journals that relate to space law.

"You visited this page on 2/8/12. < Get this, Google is Tracking WHEN I visited that Page."

Guess what?? Newsvine knows you're here too!

So does MSNBC!!