Remember when Ronald Reagan created the Strategic Defense Initiative,
the idea being that rather than only having mutually assured
a response, we could have a shield to intercept incoming ICBMs? He
so convinced of it's importance that at Reykjavic, Iceland, when
offered to go as far as eliminating all nuclear weapons, if Reagan
confine SDI to the laboratory, Reagan refused. The libs and the
pissed all over SDI, calling it Star Wars. How stupid it was. How
going to get us into a war, creating a whole new weapons race. Taking
war to space.
Yet, today the missle defense systems that are a direct result of that
are being deployed to guard the US and it's allies from the nut case
weilding missles and nukes in North Korea. Obama even ordered up
more of it to protect the west coast. After of course, he canceled
same stuff earlier in his administration. As far as SDI creating a
race, it did. It created one that the USSR not only couldn't win, but
they couldn't even compete in and it helped push them over the edge,
into collapse. Defeated, Gorbacev ultimately accepted the
nuclear treaty reductions that Reagan had offered years earlier and
accepted it on Reagan's terms.
We're still going thorugh the latest saber rattling from North Korea.
bad as it is, within just a few more years, they will have missles
of hitting the US directly, not just our allies or bases. Imagine
will be like, when they could actually hit HI or Los Angeles.
So, with the little runt over there threatening to unleash missles,
I've been waiting for the media to run a story: "Reagan was right
And for Obama and all the libs to say the same thing. How long do you
think we'll be waiting.....?
replying to firstname.lastname@example.org , passerby wrote:
I remember! What a stupid, irresponsible and arrogant idea it was! Especially
introduced at the time when most ICBMs became multi-warhead or multi-projectile
(MIRVs) with dummy warheads being interspersed with real ones to complicate
targeting. There was never really any way to target the booster before
separation (too close or even over the adversary's territory) and there was
never a way to target the small re-entry vehicles especially considering how
many there would be and how many decoys, booster debris and other chaff you'd
had to look at before you found the real warhead. And you only had 25-30
minutes. And with an astonishing in the fog of war 99% success rate you would
still miss 100 warheads out of 10,000 available to the Soviet Union in the
1980s. 100 mushroom clouds over the US despite unknown (but certainly vast)
amount of money spent on the program still does not look like a good idea.
That's one way to look at it. But the more likely scenario is that Soviet Union
was falling apart since at least 1982 from internal causes. Gorbachev wanted to
buy some time by offering to cut *more* nuclear arms than Reagan proposed in
1981. They are expensive to maintain. I'm pretty sure Gorbachev looked at the
books and thought: "what the hell, we can be just as dead with 5,000 warheads as
with 10,000. At least we'll save some maintenance money". SDI was at such early
stages of development that it could not have played any role in the collapse of
the Soviet Union and even in general terms the strange refusal to accept the
vague "10 years of laboratory research only" clause was meaningless. It was at
the laboratory stage for much longer than the 10 years that Gorbachev sought. By
the way, nothing was accepted on Reagan terms, the Reykjavík Summit ended with
NOTHING achieved, it was an utter failure. Reagan couldn't even bring up the
question of the Afghanistan invasion (8 years after the fact).
Waiting for what?
You do not need an SDI-type program for shooting down N. Korean boosters. SDI
was for all-out 1000s of ICBMs flying, a true doomsday scenario. How many ICBMs
can N. Korea possibly field? You can have multiple US Navy destroyers with Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense System in the Sea of Japan in a matter of days (there
are 3 there now, I believe - you can check the public deployment data, I think
it's available online) and completely overwhelm them with the amount of SM-3
interceptors available. All without violating any international treaty, unlike
It's all there. I'm sure the guys in the control rooms (as well as Lockheed and
Raytheon engineers) are anxious to test a SM-3 (or a dozen) in real life
deployment without any danger of accidentally causing World War 3. They must be
sitting on the edge of their seats right now anxious for a chance of a lifetime
to prove their worth.
So, what's with all the drama?
If they can't possibly work, they why is Obama deploying
more ICBM defense systems to the west coast of the USA?
And we'd have a lot more of them and an even more
effective shield if the rest of the technology had been
deployed. It's obviously just dumb to say that it's
impossible to intercept an ICBM. Not only has it been
shown over and over that for every offensive system it's
possible to build some kind of defense, we actually
have a working limited defense. It's just that it's small and not
what it could have been, had it not been for you libs.
Wrong. Learn history. I've seen several former Soviet
Union State Dept officials giving interviews. They said
the Russians were mortified by SDI. They knew it required
advanced technology that they had no hope of matching.
And that they couldn't afford it. If the USA developed it,
then the USA would have a shield and they would not.
If they weren't so damned afraid of it, then why did Gorbachev
walk out of Reyjkavik when Reagan refused to confine
SDI to the laboratory only? THAT was the only issue that
prevented them from achieving what would have been the
most monumental nuclear arms reduction in history.
And it shows you the strong character of Reagan. All he
had to do was give up SDI and he would have had an
arms deal that no president had ever been able to achieve.
He would have in one fell swope proved all his detractors
wrong and would have returned home a conquering hero.
But he knew how important SDI was. Just take a look
at Iran and North Korea and it's obvious he was absolutely
And he didn't just push them with SDI. He pushed them
by putting Pershing missles in Europe, forcing them to try
to figure out how to respond to that. He made huge increases
in all conventional systems and they had to try
to match that. More ships, more tanks, more subs,
more aircraft. Were they already in economic trouble?
Sure, but he sure put the boot to their throats. If we had
some lib running things, he probably would have sent
some free thinking libs over to help them with their economic
and even in general terms the strange
BS. About a year later, Gorbachev came back hat in hand
to Reagan in DC and signed the biggest nuclear arms reduction in
history. It's key feature was the elimination of medium range
an entire class of nuclear weapons. It was the ZERO option that
Reagan had proposed from day one. HE told them from day one,
either you get rid of all your medium range missles aimed at
western europe, or we're going to deploy those Pershing missles
aimed at you. They refused, so he and Thatcher put them in
the UK. They went into Germany too. The libs said, "My God, you're
gonnna start a war...." Instead, eventually Gorbachev showed up
in DS, signed that treaty. The Russians destroyed their missles
and the US destroyed the Pershings. We got the zero option.
IDK what that's all about. Everyone knows that Reagan
was very tough on Gorbachev in all their early meetings. He
lectured him on how bad the USSR was, something no president
ever dared to do.
To say thank you Reagan, you were right.
How do you get an ICBM from one continent to another,
if not with a booster? geez... WTF exactly are those
rockets that would go from NK to the west coast of the
Well, since we just let them keep working on it, the
number grows each day and the upper limit is unknown.
How many ICBMs does it take to kill 5 million people?
You can have multiple US Navy destroyers
Better tell that to Obama then, because he just announced
they are deploying more ground based anti-missle defense
systems to the west coast of the USA. And they also said
that more may be necessary on the east coast as well.
To intercept ICBMs. You don't follow the news much, do you....
What drama? I'm just asking for an acknowledgement that
Reagan was right. But you libs are totally ignorant of even
the most basic facts and lie about much of the rest, so
that won't likely be forthcoming.
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:17:42 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
The big thing that your small mind can't fathom is the fact that it costs
billions for the technology...but only millions to counter that technology.
It is a "Catch 22".
You "guys" will NEVER get it...swoosh!
billions for the technology...but only millions to counter that technology
If it doesn't work, then why is Obama deploying it to the
west coast? Why is he saying he's considering deploying
it to the east coast? Why is he ordering more of it, after of
course first cancelling it? Does Obama have a small mind?
I leave it for others to judge who doesn't even understand the
most basic facts.
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:17:42 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Because we're defending against 5 missiles, not 10,000. That's why.
Reagan's idea was to have giant Austin Powers-esque "la-sers" in orbit to g
o "pew-pew-pew" and shoot down the missiles in flight.
Of course, he would *never* point them at the ground and turn them on his o
wn people, riiiiight? We're all in a tizzy now because the government bough
t some handgun bullets. Big orbiting laser platforms that can wipe out citi
es? Nahhh, we can trust our government with thaaaat. Our real worry is guys
in black suits with pistols.
On Apr 17, 1:08 pm, email@example.com wrote:
The Russians never had 10,000 missles. Nor the Chinese.
go "pew-pew-pew" and shoot down the missiles in flight.
A lib lie. Reagan didn't have an idea of lasers, or rockets, or spit
Reagan's idea was simply to be able to intercept an incoming missle or
and stop it. He didn't specify the technology or specific approach.
THAT was what all the SDI research was about, how to to it. And that
is what lead to the missle defenses being used today to guard against
own people, riiiiight? We're all in a tizzy now because the government bou
ght some handgun bullets. Big orbiting laser platforms that can wipe out ci
ties? Nahhh, we can trust our government with thaaaat. Our real worry is gu
ys in black suits with pistols.
Another village idiot for the list.
On 4/16/2013 2:14 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
********Clip Lots Of Good Stuff********
Back in the late 1980's I had a very (tiny) small part in The SDI
program and I was told in confidence by an Army officer that the focus
had changed from a missile shield to protection of our satellites. I was
working at what was known as The Kwajalein Missile Range, it is now
known as The Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site. It is a
very fascinating place steeped in history. If you have time, you can
spend hours cruising The Websites that tell about the place. ^_^
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:14:41 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
How about giving him credit for our economic collapse?
Yes, it figures you lib loons would try to go back 30 years
and blame Reagan for what's wrong with today's economy.
The truth is Reagan inherited a huge economic mess, in
many ways equal to or worse than what Obama faced.
We had a stagnant economy, high unemployment, double digit inflation,
a prime rate at 21%, and US Tbonds at 16%. Jimmy Carter
called it a "malaise" and lectured the country on how it was
our fault. The lib elite were writing pieces about how maybe
the USA had become so complex, no one could govern it any
When Reagan left office unemployment was down
to 5%, and interest rates had been returned to normal levels.
And the USA place as a world leader with a vibrant economy
had been restored. We felt good about ourselves and our
country for the first time in more than a decade. And from the
day Reagan took office, unlike whining Obama, I never once heard
him blaming the countries problems on Jimmy Carter.
If you want to look at why we have an economy that is barely
growing, you don't need to go back 30 years. Just go back
4. You have an anti-business president. He's attacked insurance
companies, drug companies, oil companies, Wall Street....
He's blocked drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the keystone pipeline,
even Boeings new plant in SC that would employ thousands
as part of the 787 program. And by screwing with that Boeing
plant, he put all the other tens of thousands of jobs in the USA
and around the world that depend on the 787 in jeopardy too.
Real good moves, with a struggling economy and high
unemployment. And just as soon as he gets one tax increase,
he's flying around at $1mil a day campaigning for another
In short, he's doing the exact opposite of everything Reagan
did. So, lets look at the results, shall we. From the third year
of Reagan on, we were creating 300,000, 400,000, jobs a
month. One month we hit 1.2 mil. In the fifth year of Obama,
we're lucky to hit 125,000. Last month is was just 80,000.
But yeah, it's all Reagan's fault......
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:33:32 AM UTC-7, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Your piece is full of a lot of myth. There is no way that what Reagan inher
ited comes even close to what happened to the economy in 2008. Carter never
said "malaise" (you're the one who put it in quotes). How could Obama be a
nti business when they're making record profits and Wall Street has never d
one better? For christ's sake, get your head out of wingnut radio and look
up some of the facts and get it right?
Better yet, why do you post this to another newsgroup other than home repai
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:47:45 PM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
I'm amused by the fact that both sides here seem to agree that Reagan
"inherited" the bad economy of the early 1980's...
...but the so-called "right" claims that Obama CAUSED the current economic
crisis. Even though it started in 2007 under someone else's watch.
I'm also amused that the so-called "right" has to go clear back to Reagan to
have anything to be proud about, while the so-called "left" thinks every one of
theirs that has held office is God's gift to the Presidency.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:06:51 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
You're lying. Obama *HAS* made a bad situation a *lot* worse, though.
He's done exactly the wrong thing. If he'd done nothing, we'd be well
on the way out of the mess and perhaps in quite good shape. A $17T
boat anchor hasn't helped, though.
have anything to be proud about, while the so-called "left" thinks every one of
theirs that has held office is God's gift to the Presidency.
Reagan was the last President that could be called "right". Of course
you're not bright enough to figure that out. Lefties never are.
Well, that's sort of true, but certainly not in the way you intended it. The
inherited had unemployment, interest, and inflation rates *all* in double digits
-- *far* worse
than the economy that Obama inherited.
At least one of these statements about you must be true: you're less than
old, and you get the majority of your information from television news
apparently bought into the lie that was repeated over and over a few years ago
being "the worst economy since the Great Depression". No, it wasn't. 1978-1982
locked up. Clearly, all you know about the economy at that time is what you've
been told. I
was in the workforce then. I remember.
The situation you describe above reminds me of the
recent disgrace in London with the death of Thatcher.
Did you see the parties the leftist nuts were throwing
celebrating? If you look at them, most of the
participants were either young kids or not even born
when Thatcher was PM. I heard one of them yelling
"She ruined my entire life!" All they know is the leftist
crap they've been fed.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.