Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 10:09:11 GMT -5
Our satellite surveillance kind of makes the treaty a losing proposition for us. Our satellites are more advanced than Russia. I could see pulling out, as it's sort of an outdated treaty, in regards to us watching them. Trump was most likely advised of this by the military, and was just following the recommendation. Even in what's released to our media, you never here of any new discoveries of activity being found by overflight, it's always satellite. Name me the last time he actually followed the advice of US military leadership. He seems to make a lot of decisions that blindside them. Because, even though he's never served, he thinks he's smarter than any general... My extrapolation was because aircraft surveillance is outdated. It is used however, when planes are already in an area, as in an active war situation. You know as well as I do that neither one of us are privy to what happens in the briefings, actual briefings, not media opinion pieces. No one knows what he thinks, unless you're Miss Cleo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 10:11:52 GMT -5
Eisenhower first proposed the treaty in the mid 1950s, that is the technology that was in place when the treaty was conceptualized.
In today's world, our satellites and our high-resolution equipment make the need for an airplane flyovers unhelpful. Ten or 20 years ago, when the US and Russia were jointly de-commissioning equipment, both countries chopped the wings off of bombers and placed them in an open field so that they could be inspected from satellites (ours were/are in Tucson). Both countries had the satellite technology at that time - and the resolution has greatly improved since that time.
Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 10:21:17 GMT -5
Our satellite surveillance kind of makes the treaty a losing proposition for us. Our satellites are more advanced than Russia. I could see pulling out, as it's sort of an outdated treaty, in regards to us watching them. Trump was most likely advised of this by the military, and was just following the recommendation. Even in what's released to our media, you never here of any new discoveries of activity being found by overflight, it's always satellite. If you want military type news...read the military publications...they are on line too...most of them. I wasn't requesting any military news.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 10:22:41 GMT -5
So Russia can no longer over fly the US for surveillance purposes ? This is bad ? Cold war is over I believe....and treaty allowed us to fly over Russia, big, big country.......keep our spies home...also there are satellites...understand they are quite effective... Yes, they are very effective. Using them with repeated time lapse photography, really shows what's happening.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Oct 10, 2019 10:51:46 GMT -5
Satellite orbital performance is part of how I make a living Cool!!! Yes it is. It also allows me to comment when you are just pulling stuff out of your *rse
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Oct 10, 2019 12:18:04 GMT -5
Yes it is. It also allows me to comment when you are just pulling stuff out of your *rse …………………... ……………………………………. ………..
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 10, 2019 12:45:34 GMT -5
If you want military type news...read the military publications...they are on line too...most of them. I wasn't requesting any military news. Didn't think you were, but you might learn a few things if you did!
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Oct 10, 2019 22:27:41 GMT -5
Lets see Clinton was in when that was signed good enough reason for me to get out of it. You should probably check your facts. And your history. Knowing you won't, though.... The idea was originally proposed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955. It was revived by George Bush in 1989 and signed in March, 1992. Clinton was elected in November, 1992 and took office in January, 1993. The treaty went into effect in 2002 after Russia and Belarus ratified it. George W. Bush was president then. Tell us again what part Clinton played and why he is the reason it should be dumped. Your correct I read the time line wrong.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Oct 11, 2019 0:27:03 GMT -5
Also known as caught lying based on your political bias. Bad form.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2019 7:31:02 GMT -5
I wasn't requesting any military news. Didn't think you were, but you might learn a few things if you did! Your reply is born of ignorance. I'm an old wardog, retired from the weapons primary fabrication business. I don't get my military information from media sources. The old boys and girls still get together at times to talk shop.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 11, 2019 11:39:03 GMT -5
Didn't think you were, but you might learn a few things if you did! Your reply is born of ignorance. I'm an old wardog, retired from the weapons primary fabrication business. I don't get my military information from media sources. The old boys and girls still get together at times to talk shop. Do you feel better now?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2019 11:47:49 GMT -5
Your reply is born of ignorance. I'm an old wardog, retired from the weapons primary fabrication business. I don't get my military information from media sources. The old boys and girls still get together at times to talk shop. Do you feel better now? I don't know what you mean. Unless it's the born of ignorance statement. To clarify, I use the word ignorant as it's intended. Lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant of something. It wasn't meant to be offensive. As an aside, I don't ridicule or insult anyone unless they do it first. Apologies if it was offensive.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 11, 2019 13:25:03 GMT -5
Didn't think you were, but you might learn a few things if you did! Your reply is born of ignorance. I'm an old wardog, retired from the weapons primary fabrication business. I don't get my military information from media sources. The old boys and girls still get together at times to talk shop. I'm sure your friends' research methods and source verifications are beyond reproach.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 2:47:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2019 14:20:42 GMT -5
Your reply is born of ignorance. I'm an old wardog, retired from the weapons primary fabrication business. I don't get my military information from media sources. The old boys and girls still get together at times to talk shop. I'm sure your friends' research methods and source verifications are beyond reproach. None of my military contacts are actually 'friends', so to speak. They don't research anything, in regards to weapon information. They build the stuff. That's why I worded it the way I did. If you were to read all my posts regarding military process and hardware, let's say, for the last twenty years, you would find no mistakes. A few refusals of questions, in regards to classified information, has happened at times. Sow discord if you wish. (bolded) Means nothing to me.
|
|