America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by pabloescabar. 18 replies replies.
WWRD? (What Would Reagan Do?)
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Puff Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
In 1979 when Reagan was campaigning and having a press conference at the Airport Inn in Jacksonville, Florida he was asked this question, "How do you feal about the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world?" His reply was simple, "Well, frankly I don't think it is any of our business." When pressed about this later he did not flinch being a man of conviction. Much was made of this fact. In the Presidential debate that year then President Jimmy Carter even made a point by saying that he had asked his 12 year old daughter what she thought was the preiminate issue of the day and she had responded the threat of nuclear weapons. As we all know it was blown off as a joke being that President Carter was asking his 12yo daughter for advice. What a clever counter point. I am that every good conservative here would have to agree that Ronald Reagan was right about this. Right?
CWFoster Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
It's a different world now than it was. The more countries that possess nukes, the more likely some small former Soviet Republic needing money, or a muslim theocracy will sell or give one or more of these weapons to someone like Osama Bin Laden, who WILL NOT HESITATE to use them! Who knew we would one day wish to have the Russian Red Threat again. At least then we knew exactly who the bad guys were, and could count on them to play according to certain rules.
Puff Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
CW, I agree with what you have said. We were so worried about the evil empire that I really don't think we realized that instead of one country controling so many warheads we would end up with multi countries of questionable stability and security possessing nukes. It is a screwed up world out there beyond our shores.
Puff Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
CW, I agree with what you have said. We were so worried about the evil empire that I really don't think we realized that instead of one country controling so many warheads we would end up with multi countries of questionable stability and security possessing nukes. It is a screwed up world out there beyond our shores.
Puff Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
CW, I agree with what you have said. We were so worried about the evil empire that I really don't think we realized that instead of one country controling so many warheads we would end up with multi countries of questionable stability and security possessing nukes. It is a screwed up world out there beyond our shores.
Puff Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
WTF??lol
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 11:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Puff

reagan was a man of conviction because he had a one track mind and was never influenced by new ideas and information.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Feb 26 2004, 11:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Puff

when you his post message, wait, it will get posted. if you hit post message again you will double the post.

i'll bet we can agree on that.
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Feb 27 2004, 3:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
What Would Roosevelt Do?

During World War 2, President Franklin D Roosevelt, a democrat, signed an executive order calling for the rounding up of all Japanese-Americans and put them into internment camps until the end of the war. I am sure that every good democrat here would have to agree that Franklin Roosevelt was right about this. Right?

During the Civil War, General Sherman of the Union Army while under direct orders from republican President Lincoln, proceeded to.....

You get the point.

It is kinda interesting when you take events out of the context of the time they occurred and apply today's standards and hindsight. I remember a football game recently where a team went for it on fourth down and one yard and tried to complete a pass but the receiver dropped the ball. Had they run to the left side, the blocking was strong and they clearly would have made the first down.

In terms of nuclear history since Reagan made that comment in 1979, ONE LESS country has nuclear bombs now. That is right, the number of countries with nuclear warheads has gone down in the last 25 years. South Africa got rid of theirs and North Korea has made claims that they have a bomb but haven't tested anything to prove it. Otherwise, there has been no change in proliferation.

Have Nukes
----------
US
Russia
China
France
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan

Puff Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, Feb 29 2004, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
I got news for you HockeyDad, when the Soviet Union was a single country they controlled all of thier nukes. Now with the disolution of the SU multiple countries that are the remnants; Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine of the former SU. So your assertion that less countries currently have nukes is less than accurate. IMHO.
Puff Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, Feb 29 2004, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
BTW, I am not taking anything out of context. The question was straightforward and simple. His reply was straightfroward and simple. Do you really think that the spread of nukes in the world has ever been a non-issue? Come on don't be such an idealogue. I swear there is not a political party in exestance that I would have such a blind allegance to. What happens to conservatives that they get this lock step mentality that dares not desention. Hell, I loved my daddy but I disagreed with him now and then. I just don't get it.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Feb 29 2004, 9:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
HockeyDad

and i remember the rams coach?, afraid to let his quarterback pass and letting the clock run down, playing for a tie, and trying to win on a coin toss.

there was another team that got beat because the coach was chicken**** in the final minutes. i can't remember the name of the team, but i hope he and martz have a nice summer contemplating their stupidity.
CWFoster Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Mar 1 2004, 4:47 AM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414

In terms of nuclear history since Reagan made that comment in 1979, ONE LESS country has nuclear bombs now. That is right, the number of countries with nuclear warheads has gone down in the last 25 years. South Africa got rid of theirs and North Korea has made claims that they have a bomb but haven't tested anything to prove it. Otherwise, there has been no change in proliferation.

Have Nukes
----------
US
Russia
China
France
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan

Where to start, the fragmentation of the USSR has been mentioned already, and as I am not a democrat, I wont deat a dead horse. If you overlook Isreal having nukes, never confirmed, but then why WONT they allow INRC (I think that's right) inspectors into their reactor in Haifa? Iran has been working on a reactor with the former Soviet Union that is also (coincidentally) capable of being used to enrich uranium. And if you study a bit of almost recent history, Argentina now has a bomb, ostensibly for peaceful mining uses (Yeah, Sure, Right!) BTW, it HAS been tested and comfirmed.
HockeyDad Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Mar 1 2004, 5:03 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
Puff,

In your humble opinion, you are wrong.

All nuclear weapons in the former Soviet state of Ukraine transferred to Russia. The last nuclear warhead was removed 6-1-96.

In 1993, transfer of all 81 SS-25 nuclear missles and tactical warheads in Belarus was made to Russia, although the weapons remained in Belarus under Russian military guard. Physical transfer of the weapons to Russia was completed in 1996.

All nuclear weapons were out of Kazakhstan by May 1995. Kazakhstan returned 1400 strategic nuclear warheads and 104 SS-18 ICBMs, as well as their support equipment to Russia. Eliminated 147 ICBM (mostly SS-18) silo launchers, launch control centers and test silos located at Zhangiz-Tobe, Derzhavinsk, Semipalatinsk and Leninsk.


Here is the statement from the White House Press Secretary's office. November 24, 1996 Note the date...The denuclearization of the former Soviet state all took place under the Clinton Administration. This was a huge accomplishment that got overshadowed by other events. Perhaps the largest accomplishment of his 8 years in office.

"Today we have witnessed another historic milestone toward the reduction of the global nuclear threat. All nuclear warheads and SS-25 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) have been removed from the territory of Belarus. Together with the successful de-nuclearization of Kazakstan and Ukraine, today's actions reflect the success of President Clinton's policy to support the removal of all nuclear weapons from those states, other than Russia, which inherited the Soviet nuclear arsenal when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

In 1991, there were more than 500 strategic and tactical nuclear warheads and 81 SS-25 ICBMs in Belarus. Today there are none. In total, over 6,000 strategic and tactical nuclear warheads have been removed from Kazakstan, Ukraine and Belarus over the past five years.

I also note that both the United States and Russia are ahead of the reduction schedule specified in the START I Treaty. To date, the United States has eliminated launchers for 825 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and about 875 launchers for strategic nuclear delivery vehicles in the former Soviet Union have been eliminated, including almost 750 in Russia. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) program is playing a major role in the elimination of these weapons in the former Soviet Union, just as it did in the de-nuclearization of Kazakstan, Ukraine and Belarus."


Now as for my original statement, it stands and is completely accurate.

In terms of nuclear history since Reagan made that comment in 1979, ONE LESS country has nuclear bombs now. That is right, the number of countries with nuclear warheads has gone down in the last 25 years. South Africa got rid of theirs and North Korea has made claims that they have a bomb but haven't tested anything to prove it. Otherwise, there has been no change in proliferation.

Have Nukes
----------
US
Russia
China
France
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan

As for lock step mentality and conservatives, are you assuming I am a Republican based on my comments? You would be incorrect. Go figure.

....But you did agree with Roosevelt, right?
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Mar 1 2004, 5:28 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
"Argentina has never produced nuclear weapons and does not possess them today. From the 1960s to the early 1990s, however, Argentina pursued an ambitious program of nuclear energy and technological development, which included construction of an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility. Buenos Aires also refused to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to bring the Treaty of Tlatelolco into legal force. When democratic rule returned in 1983, the new president placed the nuclear program under civilian control and initiated a process of nuclear confidence building and cooperation with historic rival Brazil. In the early 1990s, the two countries established a bilateral inspection agency to verify both countries' pledges to use atomic energy only for peaceful purposes. Argentina acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1995.

Argentina dismantled its medium-range ballistic missile program, the Cóndor II, in the early 1990s. The Cóndor missile program received technical support from a consortium of European firms and funding from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq. Argentina’s intent was to develop the Cóndor II not only for its own use—which was largely motivated by its loss in the Falklands/Malvinas War with Great Britain—but for export as well. Concerns that missile technology was reaching the Middle East caused the United States to pressure Argentina to end the program, which it did in 1992. Argentina became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1993."

Source: Nuclear Threat Initiative (co-Chairmen Sam Nunn and Ted Turner) and Center for NonProliferation Studies


Israel is a different story. It is fairly widely believed that they started a nuclear program in the 1950s and have 100-200 nuclear weapons. Nothing have ever been confirmed. The belief that these weapons exist as a doomsday defense against another Arab-Israeli War has been quite effective in keeping the peace since 1973 and the last major war. If they don't have nuclear weapons, they've pulled off the ultimate deception. Since there is no confirmation of the weapons or confirmed testing, Israel is not considered part of the nuclear club.
eleltea Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Mar 1 2004, 6:23 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
"Lockstep liberals" is more alliterative.

"Lockstep liberals" are more alliterative.

Which is correct?
Puff Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Mar 2 2004, 7:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-19-2003
Posts: 49
I tell you what Hockey Dad, if you think the spread of nuclear weapons was an ok thing, well I'd say you were either not thinking correctly or lying. I think it was and will always be an extremely important issue. And my opinion does not have a damn thing to do with politics. I also thought, when I heard Reagan say it with my own ears, that it was about the most stupid thing I had ever heard a politician say. I still do.
usahog Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Mar 2 2004, 8:10 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Reagan said it, because he was pushing Star Wars.. do you have a clue how far along that scraped program is??

Lazer light shows and melting the enemy's nukes in the silo's remember reagan saying this also??

well you really think it was scraped??? LMAO!!!!

Hog
pabloescabar Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Mar 2 2004, 10:32 PM EST
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
I hope not.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top