Slashdot Mirror
US, Russia Reach Nuclear Arsenal Agreement
Peace Corps Library writes "The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December. Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start. Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December. The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads. 'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama."
boooo, there goes my hopes of one day having a child that would roam the wastelands and be the savior of all humanity.
Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis, thanks.
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations. - Robert S. McNamara
Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday. It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies. He was Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968. Although I did not agree with a lot of his views he shaped a lot of the nuclear buildup during the cold war. I believe he was responsible for abandoning Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear war. He was first tasked by Kennedy of explaining nuclear fallout. McNamara favored non-nuclear power and one of the books I read "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" shed a lot of light on the Vietnam war for me.
If you haven't seen Erol Morris' "The Fog of War" you should.
Rest in peace Robert Strange McNamara. You revealed to me the horrors that leadership must face during war.
My work here is dung.
This could mean even more cheap launch vehicles for satellites, since launching missiles is a good way of reducing their numbers...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. Go USA! Go Russia!
Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction. But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.
now you fuckers can only destroy the world once over! ...ooooh wait a second.
Basically the United States gave Russia a billion or so and tactical/technical/administrative support every year to reduce their weapons stock pile.
So even when Bush and Putin had their panties bunched up, great work was being done cooperatively by both sides. The program considered pretty successful by government standards.
I know, I know, the idea of good news from government is a scary one!
I think not! These weapons are with us for good.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
In this day and age of missiles that can shoot down missiles, you need more missiles not less so that an unstoppable barrage of nuclear death is assured to break through any possible defense.
...
The new limit works out to roughly one warhead per seventeen thousand square miles of the Earth's land-mass. That's an area a bit larger than the Netherlands. While I'm glad that we'll be spending less in the long run on maintaining and securing the decommissioned armaments, this doesn't really change the picture should the shit really hit the fan someday.
Any species that figures out how to travel in space also invents powerful weapons and blows itself up before it can visit other inhabited worlds.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far. "The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.
Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it. France, China, and the UK seem to be pretty secure with even less.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
...that America and Russia don't want to set the world on fire - they just want to start a flame in your heart?
The program considered pretty successful by government standards.
Meaning what, a lot of rich fucks got richer, and almost nothing actually got done?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is? What has that really accomplished?
Not so sure this is a good thing in the short term - in the long term we're all better off with less nukes about the place.
My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state. Their economy isn't looking too healthy, and what better way to detract the population from economic issues than an exciting little war? Putin's not exactly a tree-hugging, peace-loving type, and his puppet Medvedev was happy to go along with the incursion of Georgia.
Obama's good intentions may just end up haunting him.
START requires only that the weapons be deactivated, not destroyed. The US currently has over 4,000 "deactivated" nuclear weapons. Believe someone who used to shove them up a Buff's (B-52) belly, they can be reactivated in short order.
Also, START is 'Strategic' Arms Reduction Treaty. It says nothing about tacticals, either battlefield or ship based weapons, or EMP devices.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
you insensitive clod
Do you realize how much it is costing to maintain our nuclear arsenal? And that our reactors for making the fissionable and fusionable parts are deteriorating, with little hope of getting a new one approved thanks to the "consortium of idiots afraid of anything nuclear so we'll keep burning natural gas".
So, this is a win-win.
Russia never reduces its stock of nukes, american fools.
But America is supposed to have the Big Stick! Who will listen to us if our stick shrinks?
Then there's the psychological effect. In historical war terms, 9/11 was a nonevent. 25000 people are believed to have been killed in one air raid on Dresden in WW2, maybe three times that in a short period at Hiroshima. Yet the psychological effect on the US was tremendous. If a tenth of the population died in an hour, and maybe another tenth over the next year, that shock would be multiplied many times over.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Well yeah. Anyone ever here of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_Treaty/? Let me quote the Wikipedia article: START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States' President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses. This makes many of these weapons obsolete, as they no longer have a guaranteed first-strike capability.
The old arms race was big missiles and bombers; the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.
But it was a nice press opportunity for both men to come out smelling like roses while they quietly plan each other's destruction.
Futurist Traditionalism
DAVID LANGE, Oxford Union debate, 1985
I would MUCH rather that Russia and USA be armed to the point where an ABM site can interfere with a high percentage. In particular, China is now over 600 nuclear-tipped launchers, and appears to be building many more (and may actually already be up to 1000).
The simple fact is, that MAD prevented the cold war turning hot. Now, with China on a major defensive buildout, mostly space and nukes, the west (and russia) MUST keep its number up. Otherwise, this will encourage a few ppl in China to decide to turn things hot.
A member of the bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission -- headed by former secretaries of defense William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger -- warns that the preliminary agreement signed by Barack Obama guts part of the American nuclear arsenal but does not demand significant gutting of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Two points of serious note are (1) nuclear launchers and (2) tactical nuclear weapons.
Nuclear launchers are mechanisms for launching the intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Russians are demanding that we Americans reduce the number of our launchers to 500, but the Russians were already (before the signing of this agreement) planning to reduce the number of launchers to close that number because they cannot afford to replace the launchers that must be shutdown due to reaching the end of their operational life. In other words, the Russians do not make any sacrifice on this matter but demand that the Americans make all the sacrifices.
As for tactical nuclear weapons, the Russians successfully insisted that these weapons be removed from coverage in this preliminary agreement. The Russians have a 10-to-1 advantage over us Americans in tactical nuclear weapons.
The only winning move is not to play
How about a nice game of chess?
It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency). Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union. I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.
So you are saying that minorities shouldn't use their vote to pull themselves out of their bad position? Interesting.
Tough sell, good luck with that.
Slashdot has officially jumped the shark.
120 comments and not a single "In Soviet Russia" joke?
This is truly a sad day.
The only good thing I can say about this is perhaps it shows some good intentions. The actual arms reduction doesn't make the world any safer. I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons.
I think you are writing megatons and mean kilotons. The effects you describe are those of tactical warheads, not strategic ones. And your ignorance of the effects of fallout, high atmospheric dust and the rest suggest that you are possibly not a very reliable source generally.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
is to get global corporation into the countries. Once that happens, peace will have a few large corporate allies.
Allies with access whose best interest is no war.
Yes, our best way toward global peace is corporate interest.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Anywhoo if we ever design a bomb that would cleanly kill all the people, it'd probably never actually get used. Just doesn't have the intimidation value of a good old fashioned nuke. Now a bomb that makes you gay... THAT would get top billing in our military arsenal!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
O is a naive waif. Clear-eyed columnist Ralph Peters knows what he's talking about: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/desperate_deal_177977.htm
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
John Bolton repeatedly demonstrates exactly why he was a rubbish choice for the UN. From accusing presenters on the BBC Today programme of being "left wing" just because they wanted him to answer a question to his complete and utter inability to view the world through anything other than jaundiced eyes.
The man is so far out of touch with normal reality and the norms of society as to be scary. Basically if John Bolton doesn't like it then 99.99% of the world's population will almost certainly think its a good idea. Hell he even fell out with Bush and Cheney.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It's nice to see this socialist foreign village idiot going around the world apologizing to all the dictators for our evil republic, and spitting in the faces of all the all the freely elected governments we should be supporting.
the worst part is the Congress using the death as a distraction to get some of their less savory items into law
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Those figures aren't unreasonable at all. High-end military hardware (which ICBMs, bombers, nuclear devices, and submarines all certainly are) are much more complex than your average family car or consumer electronic device, and are often put through much harsher use, even just in training. Consider this:
Mission-capable rates (the percentage of equipment that, at any given time, is available to perform a mission) for conventional military aircraft generally hover in the 70-90% range. Sustaining a rate of 90%+ is considered phenomenal performance. Periods of sub-60% are not unheard of.
(incidentally, this appleis to ships, too... most ships spend 1/2 to 2/3 of their time in port or drydock, or in exercises, rather than on deployment. An aircraft carrier, for example, may spend 6 months in port for refit, modification, and resupply, then 6 months training and exercise, then 6 months deployment. That's why 12 carriers in service only equates to 4-5 on station at any given time, plus one or two more available if needed)
Civilian launch vehicles still experience a number of malfunctions, and that's with an army of support personnel, flexible deadlines, and optimal conditions. Plus, they get rather frequent launches to test things and learn from them. ICBMs and SLBMs don't get that kind of testing due to funding and political constraints, and even when they do, it's under those optimal conditions. And if rockets in optimal conditions still have relatively high failure rates, what does that say about the ones sitting in underground silos for years that have to be launched at a moment's notice?
Even "simple" guided weapons like laser-guided bombs, SAMs, and AAMs experience a number of failures and near-misses. Hitting a precision target with a ballistic missile is much harder.
Most nuclear devices in service have not been tested in a long time, and only a handful of them were tested under "operational" conditions. The vast majority were simply mounted in a test fixture and initiated after careful setup. They very well might not respond as well after a high-G launch, zero-gravity and very cold coast, and a very high-G, high-temperature ballistic entry.
Finally, consider that some portion of your arsenal may be destroyed before launch, or shot down on its way to the target.
After all that, those servicability figures don't look unrealistic at all--and from what I've read from those "in the business", they might even be optimistic.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Disarming oneself in a war zone and letting everyone know it is a foolish idea. We can negotiate with Russia, but until the various nuclear loose cannons in the world shape up, such arms reductions are foolish. Although I'm actually more peeved that our missile defense funding was substantially cut, as if that would make us all safer.
ALL the WMDs need to get dismantled. There is no reason for having something that could wipe the whole earth clean many times over. It's like having a hummer.
Who cares if you have a tough hummer if you don't even use it (I'm referring to the H1. The H2/3 could just be KIAs with a shell for all they're worth.)
I read the GP's post, got interested and read up on the situation on various news sites, now couldn't agree more with parent. Don't mod everything informative just because it's well written, dammit.
So you are saying that poor people shouldn't use their vote to take from them rich and give to the poor?
Next time you go out to eat, call a vote that the richest person in the place picks up the bill for everyone, I'll bet majority wins.
It isn't governments job to "pull them out of their bad position" its their own individual job. There are no laws stating "minorities are not allowed to be paid more than 90% of the non-minority employees".
Oh yea, and these terms suck. "minorities" make up the majority. Its a BS term for people to group together around some idea they can claim they were treated unjustly for. I'm not saying there has been unjustice, but this is 2009 not 1950. Asians make more on average than whites, shouldn't whites get special treatment now? BS.
It isn't governments job to "pull them out of their bad position" its their own individual job.
No, but it is the government's job to stop the majority from actively keeping them in a bad position. Jim Crowe was only a few years ago.
but this is 2009 not 1950
Try the late 60s, which weren't so long ago. Many people who still hold a lot of sway were either part of the problem or are directly descended from those people. I'm white and I hear what other whites aren't afraid to say about blacks when there aren't any blacks around. To imply that racism is dead among whites is very disingenuous.
Asians make more on average than whites, shouldn't whites get special treatment now?
No. Asians tend to make more in the US because they tend to come here as well-educated people who bear well-educated children. This is not an injustice, just a statistical anomaly, and a direct result of our immigration policy. Visit Asia sometime if you think that Asians can't be poor and ignorant. Blacks come from a history of being ACTIVELY held down, and it's going to be a while before this nation recovers from that. Having blacks in powerful positions helps their cause, and they know that and vote accordingly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I can recommend the book Epicenter of Peace by Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan. While Nazarbayev is not very well liked in certain circles for other reasons, the book is an interesting story of why he decided to lead Kazakhstan to denuclearization.
One of the many things I learned from this book was the difference between nonproliferation and denuclearization. Kazakhstan didn't simply agree to store away the warheads like the U.S. and Russia have agreed to do, they dismantled them and shipped them entirely out of the country (basically to Russia and the U.S.). Then they dismantled the accompanying infrastructure, reseach facilities, education facilities, etc so that hopefully, nuclear arms would never again be deployed in Kazakhstan.
It's an interesting story.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Would they be able to use up the dismantled nuclear materials to make another reactor with without having to pay for mining of the stuff...(plutonium, uranium, etc..), or is the materials wasted in the making of the warhead to begin with?
In your hypothetical experiment, do the people know before voting who that is?
It'd be quite interesting if they didn't. I've suspected since the days of Thatcher and Major that people vote above their paycheck.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP? Is there a Caucasian College Fund?
At a certain point, the effects of ancient history have dwindled to nothing. I'd say that point is already past.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Now let's see if the news media reports what Obama does any better than they've been reporting Honduras removing a law-breaking president. Obama doesn't think this treaty with Russia will be approved by the Senate, so he wants to use presidential decrees to make the same changes. Just follow the rules and give it to the Senate.
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP?
No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?
Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.
Face it - in the US it is still a tremendous advantage to be a white man.
At a certain point, the effects of ancient history have dwindled to nothing. I'd say that point is already past.
The numbers disagree with you. Blacks are still disadvantaged. If you, as a white guy, don't see racism on a day-to-day basis then I'd say you aren't paying much attention, or you are very lucky and live in a place which I would love to move to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So why exactly does anyone on this planet need those nukes? It reminds me of the Doomsday device of Dr. Strangelove.
I really with that some extraterrestrial aliens would kick all government's asses, until they wise up!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP? Is there a Caucasian College Fund?
At a certain point, the effects of ancient history have dwindled to nothing. I'd say that point is already past.
"wahhhh... I'm a white man being held down by the black man."
As a German I know that money can never compensate for what my nation did to its Jewish citizens and other unwanted ethnic groups (such as Sinti and Roma). Nevertheless I take a small measure of satisfaction in the fact that compensations payments have been made and my nation actively tries to live up to this terrible responsibility.
While the level of genocide committed by my nation is unprecedented I think it is probably fair to say that the worst outrage and crime against humanity before WW2 was the organized slavery that the Anglo-Saxon world engaged in . Especially since it went on for centuries.
With regards to the United States it totally flummoxed me when I learned that no reparation payments have ever been made nor did Congress ever see fit to issue an apology on behalf of the American people.
This is not ancient history. After all Martin Luther King was shot over the struggle to gain full equality. If you can not see a direct line from slavery to the civil rights movement than I think you must be in deep denial.
i'm not sure myself, but my guess is that most elected officials (those who could legislate government-sourced reparation) or legislate/force reparations from desecendants of the original slave owners weren't the slaves or related to the slaves or foresaw any major benefit from reparations.
"To stop the terrorists."
I currently live in southern Arizona. Unless you have a college degree in a field that does not require you to work with the public, it is nearly impossible to find work here unless you speak fluent Spanish. That has been the only discrimination I have witnessed since moving here 2 years ago. Before moving, I lived in a town in the northwest part of the U.S. and witnessed no racism during my 45 years there. I am certain racism against minorities does exist in this country, but not everywhere.
Please do not reply to this stupid racist troll, he posts this crap every few days.
Ignoring these assholes is the way to go.
I'm always curious about whether or not these kind of treaties only restrict the number of warheads or the total yield of the arsenal. Of course, less nukes is always good, but if the agreement only says you must have less nukes, it doesn't stop you from making those nukes even more powerful.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Actually, most of the slavery was carried out by the Africans. In fact, Africa is the only continent that still has legal slavery to this day. And the so called Anglo Saxons consisted or Portuguese ans Spanish who purchased the slaves from African tribes and sold them to settlements under the British crown.
As for reparations, they have already been paid in both the loss of life in gaining the freedoms of the slaves and in the welfare and housing benefits given to minorities and the special treatment they got starting with the civil rights legislation of 1964. Every descendant of a slave has had the opportunity to be more then anything that the slavery took away. Even if you attach the Jim crow laws that were around as late as the early 1960, this means that almost every distressed minority is at least 1 generation out if not 2 or more. There is no need for a cash payment or anything because the people who were harmed and their families directly effected are no longer alive.
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP?
No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?
Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.
And the NAACP intends to make damned sure we don't. If nobody believed there was a problem, they'd have to find honest work. Much easier to fan the flames and make sure that everybody knows how big the problem is so that race-baiters will continue to have power.
Cases in point: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
So THAT'S where the name "Dr. Strangelove" came from! *finally clicks*
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
...are simultaneously jumping for joy and laughing cynically, as the terms of the original START treaty were a distant goal from the current-state in 1998, when the original MGS game was released, and which informed us all of the sad state of nuclear weapons disarmament agreements.
What was it - some 26,000 nuclear warheads remained between the U.S. and Russia in 1998, whereas the START II treaty called for a maximum of 6,000 per nation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Cases in point: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
First of all, those guys are a product of the times they grew up in. You can hardly blame a guy who grew up during Jim Crowe for believing that blacks have a raw deal, or for seeing the world in terms of skin color.
Second, they are dinosaurs who aren't nearly as relevant as they were in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even in the 90s. If you are basing your opinion of the black community on Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, then you aren't really getting a very good picture.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
LOL, well I suppose one way to get away from racism is to move to where there aren't any black people, but that wasn't really my intention :)
I've lived in the Northeast my whole life, and I can assure you that I have seen a lot of racism from the whites here. Mostly in the form of racist comments and jokes among other whites. I've also seen racist blacks... I went to school in West Philly, after all. But a racist ghetto rat isn't exactly going to keep me from getting a job.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
they figure out how to remove the nukes buried in each others cities.
ICBM = $2,000,000,000. Bribing a border guard = $50.
Sigh... It's fine if there's only two countries with nukes, but when you New York just blows up and you don't know who did it... well, I'm not sure what you'd do.
Face it - in the US it is still a tremendous advantage to be a white man.
:P). It bothers me that I can't have those opinions because of my ethnicity, it doesn't matter what other people who happened to share my ethnicity believed... I am an individual.
Observe the ugly face of reverse racism.
Yes you are better liked by racists, but they're morons... I'm not sure that's an advantage. I'd rather have them insult me right away and demonstrate their ignorance then let me wait years to find out they are ignorant.
A lot of what is attributed to racism these days is just anger. If I get angry and I want to say the most hurtful thing I can think of sometimes it will be racial... hopefully I'd know about your real flaws before hating you but people are reactionary.
I am from Canada, white, colourblind and a believer in Eugenics (though I think we don't know enough to know what traits to breed for... we'll let the women figure it out
Statistics apply to groups, not to individuals... the solution to the opportunities provided by coming from money can only be solved by something resembling "Brave New World", yea we could go there... but lets not. I like meeting individuals.
The US built these devices because corporations insisted they were necessary (necessary for profit) so we can only assume that they are being dismantled because someone is making money from it.
This has always been a lot less to do with national security than it was good salesmanship by arms manufacturers. There are clearly products that are more profitable to make that are more likely to be blown up and need to be replaced.
There is no cash in servicing nuclear weapons but there are a few dollars in pulling them apart.
The safety difference to the world in countries owning 100 - 20,000 nukes is bugger all. It's a logarithmic curve where 500 is just as insane as 10,000 or very insane.
That USED to be the case, but not anymore. Today, the actively hold each other down as they accept government hand-outs and cling on to a state of "victimization". Simply put, it's a culture thing. Not race.
It's the truth. Just look at the numbers. Per 2007 data, Whites make up 80% of the population while blacks make up 12.8%. However, American Indians only make up 1% while Hispanic make up 15%. This is important to point out for the simple fact that three of the four races I mentioned do *not* bitch about their situation even the slightest when put in comparison.
While I really do feel bad how blacks were treated in America's history, they no longer have any excuse to be clinging on to victimhood in this day and age.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yeah, nothing to see here move on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
It's an acronym, not a word.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Today, the actively hold each other down
Actually, this whole discussion started because they all pulled together (as they nearly always do) and voted in a monolithic block, thus increasing their political muscle.
However, American Indians only make up 1% while Hispanic make up 15%.
Native Americans were nearly wiped out and moved to reservations. The reason YOU don't hear them "bitching" is because they don't live among us for the most part. If you Google even a little bit, you will see plenty of "bitching". Similarly, you must have your head in the sand if you don't think Hispanics are trying to better their situation. Did you completely miss the millions of marchers that protested in spring of 2006?
While I really do feel bad how blacks were treated in America's history, they no longer have any excuse to be clinging on to victimhood in this day and age.
You say "this day and age" as if we live in an "age" that is so far removed from the late 1960s. There is still a lot of racism in this country, no matter how much you choose to ignore it. The only way to get rid of it is to talk about it.
You may or may not like Obama, but whatever your feelings on him he is a unique politician in that he has a black family and some (non-American) black ancestry, yet was raised by whites. This gives him a unique perspective on race issues, and he is spot on. Watch his race speech or read it if his manner bothers you - if you can understand his speech you will have a better understanding of the problem we face in this country. People aren't going to stop "bitching" until his points have been addressed - so the pragmatic thing to do is either address these points or get used to the "bitching". Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Also, I apologize for linking the Huffington Post - it was the first Google hit for the text of the speech :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yes you are better liked by racists, but they're morons... I'm not sure that's an advantage.
That's not true. Many small business owners are racists - I know some myself. Not everyone works for a major corporation with affirmative action in place to spot problems.
I'd rather have them insult me right away and demonstrate their ignorance then let me wait years to find out they are ignorant.
That much is certainly true, but it doesn't make your job search any easier.
It bothers me that I can't have those opinions because of my ethnicity, it doesn't matter what other people who happened to share my ethnicity believed... I am an individual.
Eugenics is considered to be a pretty whacky thing to believe in - no matter that you are white. Anyway, any pragmatic eugenics fan would be for dark skin anyway - better sun resistance and the only down side is vitamin D deficiency, which is not a problem with our modern diets.
Personally, I think there is no need for Eugenics - natural selection does a wonderful job of keeping us matched to our surroundings.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Correct. That's because we do in fact.
And there always will be racism. The question at hand is whether or not it's vocal. The black community (and this advice applies to everyone actually) just needs to rise above it and tell those racist bastards to piss off.
I'm white, but my fience' is Chinese (born in Shanghai). Her parents don't want her being with me for the simple fact I'm white and not asian. Well, they will just have to get over it. We love each other very much and we both understand we cannot *make* people not be racist. I will not let their unfounded ignorance drag me or her down. She feels the same way.
I like him as a person, sure. But I abhor his political and governmental philosophies (not saying McCain would be much better). Race has nothing to do with it. In fact, the only two other people in office worse then him is Nancy Pelosi and Herry Reid (we are sooo fucked).
Life is not for the lazy.
Correct. That's because we do in fact.
I'm sorry but I just can't agree with you. My parents were very alive during the civil rights movement, and my wife was born before it was legal for blacks and whites to marry in some states. Maybe my kids have been born into a new age, but as long as the victims of oppression are still alive, I can't see how you'd expect them to be anything but a product of that oppression.
Can we agree that we are in a period of transition from one age into another?
The black community (and this advice applies to everyone actually) just needs to rise above it and tell those racist bastards to piss off.
I have no problem with them doing that, but I also have no problem with them taking other steps to improve their situation... such as voting for other blacks.
I'm white, but my fience' is Chinese (born in Shanghai).
I'm also in a mixed-race marriage - my wife is from the Caribbean. Even though she's not an American black and doesn't carry the same emotional baggage, she's still helped me understand the mindset of an oppressed minority. You can't undo damage done during childhood with the passing of laws. Nor can you undo hundreds of years of ethnic-based conflict in a short period of time. My wife and I both understand the "black" and the "white" perspective now, but it took a couple of years of some pretty emotional fights and a lot of trust building.
Regarding Obama, I made the difficult choice of voting for him because I think his being President will be good for my daughter's self-esteem... someone who looks like her is President - that's a very powerful role model for a child. He also brings the race discussion out into the open, which I think is good for the country. I share your skepticism about his political philosophies, but frankly those are fleeting and less important than how well we as Americans all get along with one another. Besides, McCain ran his campaign like a deranged monkey toward the end and really pissed me off :) And in the end, both men had a nearly identical platform - differing only in the details.
I loathe Nancy Pelosi. She is just the worst kind of politician. And to think that people thought Newt was out of control when he was Speaker! She's like a she-Newt without a "Contract with America" to work from.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You might like to learn the difference between the past and the present.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Compensate them based on the difference between the average standard of living in the US compared with the countries their ancestors came from.
It'd clear the national debt overnight.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Did you have a point or were you just trying to insult me?
In the PRESENT, blacks are still actively discriminated against. In the PRESENT, it is still advantageous to be a white male in the United States of America. Are you really disputing this?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Any group is actively discriminated against by members of other groups. Are YOU claiming it's still enshrined in law?
Which one are you - the effeminate sounding Jar-Jar lookalike or the pitbull who can barely string a sentence together?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You do tend to answer "is/are" questions with "was/were" answers.
Any group is actively discriminated against by members of other groups. Are YOU claiming it's still enshrined in law?
You seem to be of the opinion that the government's job stops at simply being unbiased. I'd argue that the government's main legitimate purpose is to protect us - including protecting our rights. Many whites, who at the moment are a majority in this country, regularly discriminate against blacks. This violates a person's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore the government needs to take action.
Note that my idea of "action" is not to force anyone into anything - I don't like quotas and think they are counter-productive. Education, dialog, and data collection (like affirmative action) are what the government should be doing - and this is for the most part what they are doing today.
Your link is rather sad. Do you really think that most black people want to exterminate whites? The black panthers aren't a group I support, but go ahead and build up a straw man. You really wanna play that game? The Klan predates the black panthers. Militancy breeds militancy.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Except it doesn't stop at being unbiased - hence affirmative action (also known as discrimination against people liberals don't approve of).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's been a while since my affirmative action class, but I can tell you that isn't how it was used at my company. The goal is to seek out under-representation, not give any group a particular advantage.
You look at your group of engineers, for instance. If local schools are graduating 6% women, and your group is only 3% women, then you examine your organization to see why there is this discrepancy. Without government-collected data, it is very hard to do this kind of analysis.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.