What is Digg?86 Comments
- serpicolugnut, on 03/25/2008, -7/+28It's funny how dumb Diggers don't understand history. Had Reagan not outspent the USSR in military equipment and preparation, we may have well had to fight something a little more real than a "Cold" war. Reagan meant business, and the Soviets knew it. The fact that today we now have technology that can destroy a missle before it hits its target is a credit to Reagan's forward thinking.
You baby libs seem to think that the Cold War just "ended", and that Soviets decided to be nice guys and change their ways. They were labelled an Evil Empire for a reason - it's what they were. Reagan had the cojones to stand against them when previous presidents (read: Carter) were scurrying to accommodate them. The man, more than any other person, is responsible for there not being a Soviet empire today.
So go ahead and take your swipes against the man. It doesn't change the fact you owe him a debt of gratitude for his leadership during an uncertain time in our country. - jserio, on 03/25/2008, -6/+22Brings back memories of "Spies Like Us" - the golden era for Chevy Chase and Dan Akroid.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiIR8DF94aU - DrDragun, on 03/25/2008, -7/+19Ok, you can hate Reagan if you want to, but he was much more legitimate than his political descendents. At least Reagan was up against a legimate threat and was trying to maneuver in an environment of MAD nuclear war game theory. I don't personally agree with his philosophies and I am primarily a Democratic voter but you can at least understand where the man was coming from.
The Bushes are much much much much more f'd up. Panama? Iraq? Come on, those are much less justified than anything Reagan did. - serpicolugnut, on 03/25/2008, -3/+11You got an A because the liberal teacher loved that her indoctrination on a 6 year old went exactly as she planned.
- bonhoeffer, on 03/25/2008, -0/+7I don't know how accurate storm troopers are, but the Patriot missile was a good defensive weapon. It is what kept the Israelis from getting into the Gulf War.
The scaled back, post-analysis claims for Patriot v. Al Hussein were 40% success rate in Israel and 70% success rate in Saudi Arabia.
Ironically, the targeting problem was no inherent in Patriot, but in the instability of the Al Hussein II, a stretched version for increased range. The SCUD broke up in the atmosphere "stretching" the target, and the Patriot's split second lock on calculation selected something other than the warhead as a target.
Few if any SCUDs hit their targets, but if the warhead detonated on the ground anywhere in Israel, the intercept was considered a failure.
BTW: the Patriot was originally designed to intercept aircraft, and had not been tested in combat before Gulf War I. - madoc62, on 03/25/2008, -0/+7It's a biased an asinine tale that overly simplifies a rather complex subject and does so with a very skewed intent.
Reagan's "Star Wars" program was both a technological one and a political one. He and his advisers knew that the program's goals could not be achieved quickly but they also knew that the mere announcing of our intent to field such a system would force the Soviets to attempt to develop some sort of counter to it. And that this would force an even greater resource consuming burden onto the already weakening Soviet economy.
Within a few years the political aim of "Star Wars" had been met: the Evil Empire collapsed. With the Soviet Union destroyed and the Cold War ended, the Star Wars program was scaled back. But even an anti-military Democrat like Bill Clinton saw the justification behind having some ability to intercept nuclear missiles so despite his gutting the rest of the military he kept the Star Wars program alive.
Effecting an intercept of an inbound ballistic missile and/ or its warhead is no small feat. Even with billions invested it took a long, long time to develop the tech to do. A quarter century later the US finally has achieved this and we've begun deploying the system to defend us and our allies.
The current system is not capable of handling even what's left of Russia's nuclear missile force. It can however, handle the relative handful of launchers that North Korea has, that Iran is working on or even the ones which China can field. This is the main point of what Star Wars has become today. It eliminates the advantage of what these tinpot dictatorships are able to field.
Being able to stop even a single US or allied city from being nuked by such missiles makes the twenty five year investment in Star Wars worthwhile. - devildog1775, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6it was traveling at over 17K mph.. I think it is very good approximation.
"The missile hit the satellite about three minutes after launch as the spacecraft, roughly the size of a school bus, traveled in polar orbit at more than 17,000 mph." .. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331591,00.html - Charlotte_Web, on 03/25/2008, -0/+6Patriot missiles were an early version of an emerging technology.
FTA:
"20 February 2008. An Aegis missile successfully intercepts a defunct spy satellite the size of a bus falling down to Earth." - inactive, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7You got an A because the standard of American education is low.
- noahhoward, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7Guess what, wikipedia cites its sources.
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4The web link was a little innacurate, and turned some stuff around.
The Aegis system has been on our CG-47's and DDG-51s for a long time. We're just modifying the system that was origionally designed as an umbrella defense for our carrier battle groups agains soviet swarms of bombers and missiles. Considerably less expensive than developing spacebased lasers and such. - madoc62, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4USS,
Son, do the math. Look at the history. Look at the Soviet foreign policy since the inception of the USSR. Look at how many countries the Soviet Union occupied and controlled. Look at how many millions they put in their Gulags - not civil criminals but for political reasons. Look at how many of the former Soviet Bloc countries are desperate even now to stay out of Moscow's clutches. Look at what effect Soviet support had in its allied nations. How many millions - tens, if not hundreds of millions have been murdered in the name of Communism and with explicit and overt Soviet support. You've much to learn about history there kiddo before crying about how many people the US has in its jails. - madoc62, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5BT,
Really? Reagan did that? Shucks, you know, the facts just don't back you up. Sure, the Gipper spent a lot on the military but, if you actually look at the facts you'd see the non-defense spending was vastly greater than what the Pentagon got. Oh, sorry, I know, yet again reality gets in the way of a good rant.
Oh, and if you wanna blame someone for spending priorities - put that at the feet of the Democrats. They were the ones who controlled both houses of Congress through the Reagan years but the Democrats back then seemed to have more spine when it came to national defense and standing up against evil than do the Democrats of today. - revjustin2, on 03/25/2008, -4/+8No...no it doesn't.
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Actually, traitor, yes, they did have slavery. Not only did they have it in the principality of Muscovy (which was the origin of the state of Russia > USSR), but it was very much in vogue during the USSR, primarily Stalin's time. Uncle Joe even referred to those in the Gulag and the Tatars who were forcibly moved, as 'slaves and servs.' You don't know your history too well, McTraitor.
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -4/+7Give me a brake. Where is your proof that Reagan wanted this to happen? Oh! You don't have any, Hence the lack of links to credible sources in your post. I dont't see any that started right after Reagan was in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad (Oh Look Diggbots! Its proof!)
- madoc62, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Make no mistake, fighting the Cold War during the Reagan years cost the US a bundle. But, our economy was big enough otherwise to be able to afford that. And, it also caused the Soviet economy to collapse and thus bring down the Evil Empire. That makes all the US spending worthwhile.
Besides, within just a couple of years after the demise of the Evil Empire, the US was enjoying a huge economic boom in which even the Federal government was able to balance its budget.
A worthy investment indeed. - keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3That brand of Democrat was the Scoop Jackson / Joe Lieberman group, that were quite socially Liberal (spread their kisses around?), but knew the need and use of an amazingly strong defense system.
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5You pale in comparison. So what does that make you?
- URnotheonly1, on 03/25/2008, -0/+311 trillion will be spent on social programs in the next 25 years
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html - keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Well chocolateteddy, I'm sure you were more correct than those dreadful Conservative Planners and the OMB were. I'm sure that with your genius, you're now Emperor of the Galaxy by now, but hiding your opsitino until the rest of us have evolved past the point of silly nationalistic sovereignty problems.
- designer, on 03/25/2008, -4/+7Way to favor a Communist nation over your own. Very good.
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Essentially...correct, to a degree. Clinton kept it alive, but just enough to have it become a mere shadow of its former self. It wasn't until the much-maligned Bush the Younger arrived that a shot in the arm full of the milk of American taxpayer's broke threw the last technological problems thwarting the consistent success of warhead intercepts.
One of the Prez's good actions that is admirable, indeed. - dluv, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4You are correct. And just for the record, the sources cited in that wikipedia article are indeed not direct sources. Take a look for yourself. My favorite was an article from salon. The author throws out examples of 'right-wing aggression' and makes no mention of left-wing aggression. I guess he forgot it takes two to tango. Thank god America wasn't colonized by the Spanish.
- dluv, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Don't forget the Illegal invasion and subsequent destruction of many civilian areas of Belgrade by Clinton.
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2OMG NewYorker, the parameters of the satellite was pretty awesome. It wasn't meant to be a pure test against an offensive missile coming from China, NKorea or any other of our potential enemies, but was a test for several other things...in particular the ability to rapidly modify a missile system that was not designed for that mission, and make it work. And it did, spectacularly.
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Tuk'son, the Aegis system is put on navy ships. The correct terminology is 'An aegis-equipped navy ship.' But hey, why get in the way of accuracy?
- nick111, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Waste of money. It's the economy stupid. Remember?
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2don't be a Dick. What Gorby did was fumble around long enough and completely enough, to finish punching the last dozen holes in the Soviet economy and the military. By this time, from those who were working in the defense industry in the USSR, the military system was primarily a Paper Tiger, with only some elements of the deterrence / attack systems whole and vital. They were falling apart. Remember the great luck they had with submarines, tanks without reliable rounds (too old to be considered usable)?
- DrDragun, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4There are multiple possible equilibrium solutions for nuclear war game theory. Increasing spending to be in a perpetual state of peaceful MAD is one equilibrum state, and this is the direction that Reagan went. Detente and very slow and gradual disarmament is another possible solution.
And you don't need to outspend your enemy to be in a peaceful state of MAD. You just need to guarantee absolutely that you will have a Devastating Second Strike if the enemy launches the first strike. Even 1 nuclear submarine guarantees you will be able to Second Strike.
That said, I agree with your sentiments that Diggers by and large are ignorantly dismissive about many of the unfortunate necessities of the Cold War. - CaptEnder, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4Doctor, Doctor, Doctor...
- tucsonwc, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3aegis is not star wars.
- designer, on 03/25/2008, -3/+5So we should allow them to get as large as the USSR before we address them? Should we allow them to get some nukes?
- ryuujinusa, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2youtube link minus blog spam.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnOt4aN2uyc - keltin, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3What a Drag...having the nukes and delivery systems is a GOOD THING for our side, idjit. Their intent is to terrorize by killing innocent children, women and others who are not warriors. However, when they are faced with our Warriors, they are sent directly to Hell, not Paradise.
- URnotheonly1, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Thank you! Thats just a Navy boat, "we have not even seen star wars equipment!"
- serpicolugnut, on 03/25/2008, -3/+5Strange. I didn't realize Gorbachev was in charge of US spending. Gorbachev only adapted to the changing climate of change when he had no choice. Had Reagan appeared as weak as Carter on defense, the Soviets would have continued on believing that they could actually win a war - any kind of war - against us. Reagan showed them they wouldn't.
Remember, only Reagan had the cojones to walk away from Reykjavík when the Russians weren't willing to agree to our terms on the arms treaty. That resolve (along with later statements, including the "tear down this wall" speech) showed the Russians that we wanted peace, but we wouldn't not blindly make concessions without verification of their concessions.
Gorbachev was a great Soviet leader, but to suggest that he was the reason behind the Soviet Unions collapse is laughable. - DrDragun, on 03/25/2008, -4/+6Does "Radical Islam" have 50000 nuclear warheads on ICBM delivery systems? Does Radical Islam have hidden nuclear submarines? Does Radical Islam have an Air Force of MIG fighters capable of challenging our own might? Do you think people are going to abandon our Constitution or change their way of life because of Radical Islam and a few evil nutjobs winging pipe bombs? The human casualties could potentially be very sad but our nation as a whole is not threatened. With the USSR our entire NATION and GOVERNMENT could have been destroyed.
Please describe to me a scenario in which the American people forsake their Constitution and their sovereignty as a result of Radical Islam. They don't have the military to invade us or bomb us. They cannot hold any ground as a military force. It's not going to destroy our country. The USSR definitely could have destroyed us were it not for a strong national defense. - designer, on 03/25/2008, -5/+7Radical Islam is not a legitimate threat?
- Kratos76, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1What's a nuth ugger?
- Cockslap, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1The difference is that the USSR had nukes and was afraid to use them in fear of retaliation.... Radical Islamist cant wait to get their hands on them. I dont fear the man who wants hundreds of nukes, I fear the man who only wants one. If Bin Laden had his way, he would have set a nuke off in NYC instead of crashing planes. USSR and fundamentalist islamic ***** differ in method, but are both legitimate threats in their own ways.
- inactive, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Bush Sr. as Vice President was pretty much running all of the shadowy ops that tarnish Reagan to this day. Daddy Bush is the ultimate insider with ties to international finance and the CIA. Having him as vice president was the deal with the devil Reagan had to make and it was Bush Sr. who was behind all of the usual dirty tricks.
- DrDragun, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Use of the word 'idjit' only cements your place as a redneck stereotype caricature, as does your pseudo-scripture writing style.
In general I have a lot of respect for the disciplined Republican intellectuals on these forums debating tirelessly with the moonbat hordes here, but you are not one of them. - TheKappa, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Where's Jar Jar?
- inactive, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Still bitter over not being allowed to rape a 5 year old girl, I see. Newsflash or you...you can't rape a 5 year old girl in ANY country. You would have been sent to prison no matter where you lived.
- mlvassallo, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1So no love for Gonzo and Yoda and of course Miss Piggy? Heartless mother *****.
- keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Awesome game, spawn! I always loved doing the opening salvo.
- shadowspawn, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Battlestar? Nope.
Bah, this was done in 1980 and only cost 25c to prove your skill. It was called "Missile Command".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Command - keltin, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Wrongo Lazerbreath. You're equating a bad SCREAM mask with a cowboy hat. One is the pure expression of evil, and the second represents the simple faith that evildoers will be PUNISHED.
- scrimaxinc, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1your mom is wikipedia
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is