Freedom Act of 2005

[Jake]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-115609-6505r.htm

The Taepo-Dong 2 (range as quoted - 2300Km) can carry a payload of several hundred pounds, barely enough for a nuclear warhead.

The Taepo-Dong X (range as quoted - 3400Km) can carry an unspecified payload, the problem is, neither of these missles have the range to attack the US proper, and I very much doubt their effectiveness and whether warheads are mounted on them and whether they have the numbers they'll needs to assure success.

What the Hell are you talking about.  The article says that both have the capacity to hit the west coast of the US.  And even if they can't, they can certainly hit other places.

As I said before, a single warhead wieghs far less than the old bombs carried by the B-52's.  One war head will wiegh only about 200-300 lbs.

The article gives ranges for both, 2300 Km and 3400 Km.  Distances from Korea to the US are in the 6000 Miles range.

[12th Doctor]

Caulder Consultancies is available to analyze a best case worst case and middle case scenario for this bill, since there is dispute as to its effect, and people's votes seem to ride on what the effect would be.  Results, as this is a national security document, will be restricted only to Senators or executive branch persons who request it.

I would like to request a copy if I may, John.

[12th Doctor]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-115609-6505r.htm

The Taepo-Dong 2 (range as quoted - 2300Km) can carry a payload of several hundred pounds, barely enough for a nuclear warhead.

The Taepo-Dong X (range as quoted - 3400Km) can carry an unspecified payload, the problem is, neither of these missles have the range to attack the US proper, and I very much doubt their effectiveness and whether warheads are mounted on them and whether they have the numbers they'll needs to assure success.

What the Hell are you talking about.  The article says that both have the capacity to hit the west coast of the US.  And even if they can't, they can certainly hit other places.

As I said before, a single warhead wieghs far less than the old bombs carried by the B-52's.  One war head will wiegh only about 200-300 lbs.

The article gives ranges for both, 2300 Km and 3400 Km.  Distances from Korea to the US are in the 6000 Miles range.

First off, what does it matter, if they can hit our allies or if they can hit us.  It is all the same.  I don't know about you, but I don't want a warhead to hit Tokyo any more than I want one to hit Seattle.

Second:

" North Korea is expected to display as early as today one or two new long-range missiles, including a system capable of hitting the Western United States, U.S. officials said yesterday."

"The first official said the new "Taepo Dong X" is estimated by intelligence analysts to have enough range to land a warhead on Hawaii, Alaska, California and "most of the West Coast." "

[Jake]

Even if that was true, and one article doesn't make it so (proven by Iraq WMDs), those ranges make it extremely unlikely that a successfull attack could be mounted.  Warhead failure, missle failure, bad targeting, bad ranging, malfunction, etc, make this scenario barely feasible at best.

As far as whether Kim would launch an attack, either on us or our allies, is up in the air. He knows it means certain destruction when we retaliate and he knows that if he survives, he will have no power our will be in a US prison just like Saddam.

[12th Doctor]

Even if that was true, and one article doesn't make it so (proven by Iraq WMDs), those ranges make it extremely unlikely that a successfull attack could be mounted.  Warhead failure, missle failure, bad targeting, bad ranging, malfunction, etc, make this scenario barely feasible at best.

As far as whether Kim would launch an attack, either on us or our allies, is up in the air. He knows it means certain destruction when we retaliate and he knows that if he survives, he will have no power our will be in a US prison just like Saddam.

You don't know what it means to be truely desperate, do you?

Ragardless, what I am hearing is that you would rather error on the side of miilions dead than error on the side of caution.  This was not just one article, it was reported by several news agencies and the missiles that they are talking about have been confirmed as existing.

[Colin]

Since voting has started on this I must vote:

Nay

[12th Doctor]

Nay

[MAS117]

Aye

[Gabu]

I'm still unsure, but I unfortunately have not been convinced that this is a good idea.  Sorry, Sam, but...

Nay.

[Nym90]

Nay

[WMS]

I would love to back such a bill...

...but the execution needs work. Let's come back to this when Seige finsihes his review, OK?

Nay.

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  This bill has now been defeated. 

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

[12th Doctor]

Hmmm...  This bill has now been defeated. 

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

I think that it is a shame that you could not see the inherent weaknesses in this proposal and rather than agknowledging that you could make some changes, you choose to lash out and make claims that you know to be false.  You will notice that you did not propose a single ammendment to make this more palatable.

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  This bill has now been defeated. 

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

I think that it is a shame that you could not see the inherent weaknesses in this proposal and rather than agknowledging that you could make some changes, you choose to lash out and make claims that you know to be false.  You will notice that you did not propose a single ammendment to make this more palatable.

I did not lash out, I am just making accurate comments.

I was open to changes, though I still don't think any are necessary.

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

Instead I got comments like the following:

"This legislation is not dangerous, but downright evil in its conception. It would take a truly heartless, twisted person to actually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed."

[Gabu]

This legislation now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their mind.

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

If you can prove to me that this bill will do what it's intending to do without endangering millions of lives who may depend on foreign aid to their countries to survive, then I'll vote in favor of it if you reintroduce it.  If you can't, then you have the reason why I voted against this bill.  I was not voting against the bill's purpose; I was voting against what I perceived as being its likely effect.

[Reaganfan]

NAY

[King]

NAY

NO NEED TO SHOUT, SENATOR.  YOU HAVE A MICROPHONE!

[WMS]

This legislation now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their mind.

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

If you can prove to me that this bill will do what it's intending to do without endangering millions of lives who may depend on foreign aid to their countries to survive, then I'll vote in favor of it if you reintroduce it.  If you can't, then you have the reason why I voted against this bill.  I was not voting against the bill's purpose; I was voting against what I perceived as being its likely effect.

I agree with the Honorable Senator from...Utah, right?

[Sam Spade]

This legislation now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their mind.

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

If you can prove to me that this bill will do what it's intending to do without endangering millions of lives who may depend on foreign aid to their countries to survive, then I'll vote in favor of it if you reintroduce it.  If you can't, then you have the reason why I voted against this bill.  I was not voting against the bill's purpose; I was voting against what I perceived as being its likely effect.

This bill is now officially dead.  Let's get onto something else.

[12th Doctor]

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

That doesn't matter.  You will notice that during the discussions of the "Unwed Mothers Bills" I acctually porposed amendments to the bill based of of others often unhelpful and scathing suggestions.

[Sam Spade]

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

That doesn't matter.  You will notice that during the discussions of the "Unwed Mothers Bills" I acctually porposed amendments to the bill based of of others often unhelpful and scathing suggestions.

Yes, and after the rejection of the bill by the SC, you refused to fix the rather simple things that needed to be fixed on that bill in order to make it constitutionally valid. (such as federal control over regional jurisdiction, etc.)

My opinion is to just let this bill live or die in its present form, which I have done.

[12th Doctor]

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

That doesn't matter.  You will notice that during the discussions of the "Unwed Mothers Bills" I acctually porposed amendments to the bill based of of others often unhelpful and scathing suggestions.

Yes, and after the rejection of the bill by the SC, you refused to fix the rather simple things that needed to be fixed on that bill in order to make it constitutionally valid. (such as federal control over regional jurisdiction, etc.)

My opinion is to just let this bill live or die in its present form, which I have done.

No.  The ruling was that the only clause that was at all valid was clause VI, because the Constitution did not give specific permission to do the things the bill perscribed.  Those were not "simple revisions".  The bill did not work without them.  So, I decided to wait it out until we had a new Constitution.  Unfortunatly, I was let down once again.  So, I will propose an ammendment to the new constitution the second it is signed.

[Gabu]

I just realized that I never officially announced anything, so...

With six votes against to two in favor, this bill has failed.

As I said before, if you can show me that this will not result in hundreds of thousands or millions dying of starvation, I will vote for it.  Don't take it personally.

PS:

I agree with the Honorable Senator from...Utah, right?

Yes, that would be me.

[Sam Spade]

I just realized that I never officially announced anything, so...

With six votes against to two in favor, this bill has failed.

As I said before, if you can show me that this will not result in hundreds of thousands or millions dying of starvation, I will vote for it.  Don't take it personally.

PS:

I agree with the Honorable Senator from...Utah, right?

Yes, that would be me.

Nah, I'm not taking it personally at all. 

[WMS]

PS:

I agree with the Honorable Senator from...Utah, right?

Yes, that would be me.

Just making sure...people sure do move around in Atlasia.