Could you point me to that discussion? I'd be interested to read it.
The ABM treaty was designed for a world where you had two super powers, and you were operating on the idea that if either side fired, everyone on the planet dies.. that's a truly insane policy. It's even more absurd when you consider that even after its inception, more missiles were built, well beyond the number needed to kill every living human on the planet. This was the "point" of the treaty.. Mutually Assured Destruction.
Calling it a "failed" program is pretty silly. I mean, there's nothing about such a problem that makes it impossible, contrary to the beliefs of scientists trumped up by the USSR to sign a letter to that effect during the 80's. American scientists believed they could do it... I mean, hell. We went to the freaking moon in less than 10 years.
I honestly don't see why anyone would oppose being able to shoot down ballistic missiles. If you develop such a system, then ballistic missiles become ineffective weapons, and you don't need to worry about them.. Besides, such technology would have various other applications. It's not like you somehow develop technology that is ONLY good for shooting down ICMB's.
Calling it a "failed" program is pretty silly. I mean, there's nothing about such a problem that makes it impossible, contrary to the beliefs of scientists trumped up by the USSR to sign a letter to that effect during the 80's. American scientists believed they could do it... I mean, hell. We went to the freaking moon in less than 10 years.
I honestly don't see why anyone would oppose being able to shoot down ballistic missiles. If you develop such a system, then ballistic missiles become ineffective weapons, and you don't need to worry about them.. Besides, such technology would have various other applications. It's not like you somehow develop technology that is ONLY good for shooting down ICMB's.
At the time Bush spoke about it, Starwars (the laser defense program) was generally viewed as a failure and waste of money. Yes, it is much better to be able to save people and shoot down missiles, however our technology is not yet there. Calling a treaty that may have essentially been the peaceful culmination of the Cold War 'irrelevant', somewhat undermines the force of that treaty. Also, if you can shoot down missiles, but nobody can shoot down yours, that makes you the strongest super power.
However, certain points it brings up are simply false. Th ABM treaty was not broken. The Kyoto protocol was not a "broken promise". The US is not obligated to participate in any such treaties. That's one of the benefits of being our own nation.
If we were able to create a situation where there was no mutually assured destruction (i.e. we could launch our missiles with impunity and no one else could), this breaks the ABM treaty. I'm guessing this is what the opinion part of the Guardian piece meant. The Kyoto protocol was indeed a broken promise as one of our leaders did sign it. It was just never ratified. From the world perspective, which is very applicable for the Kyoto protocol, we did indeed break the promise that was made concerning it.
The problem with this, is that people like Magnum who don't know any better just repeat this stuff, as though the US actually broke the ABM treaty, when that is obviously not the case.
Well, as Obi-Wan said oh so long ago in a galaxy far far away, "What I told you was true, from a certain point of view". He wasn't wrong, he may not have been literally right (but then, to be literally right, we'd have had to complete the starwars program).
All I expect to get out of charity, is a better world with happier people. That will in turn make my life safer and happier.
See, that's the thing about charity, don't expect anything and you'll be much happier about doing charity.
(runs off to vacation)