As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

[chequita guevara]

Kirnwaffen understands.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
ICBMs have a lot better shot at landing then smuggling something in though, especially if we take the appropriate stances regarding trade and immigration(examples of which are listed out in the past 5 or so posts I've made on thsi matter).

Mmmm, yes, better immigration and trade policy, you haven't got a clue what it would really take to police borders as big as we have. Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before. You think it's in anyway difficult to smuggle a bomb in? Maybe it's not as good a chance as with an ICBM, unless it's a North Korean ICBM, which isn't very accurate, but it's still better than even odds it's getting in.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
No I'm saying that the purpose of the shield is to pull the teeth of leaders like Kim who think a nuke will give them leverage diplomatically. Take away that leverage, and you take away their reason for getting one.

Ah, but it has already been shown that it is not the delivery vehicle that is the threat. Regardless how the device is delivered, it is still the threat.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whoha
All Targets of interest are not near the coast. And as previously stated, with the correct trade/immigration policies this is not an issue.

Are you positively sure that none of the, uh, "rogue nations" is interested in blowing up NYC or LA?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Mmmm, yes, better immigration and trade policy, you haven't got a clue what it would really take to police borders as big as we have. Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before. You think it's in anyway difficult to smuggle a bomb in? Maybe it's not as good a chance as with an ICBM, unless it's a North Korean ICBM, which isn't very accurate, but it's still better than even odds it's getting in.

Wall/mines everything but a few entry points :P

Seriously though, every time a serious effort has been made to enforce the border, it has worked.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Whoha


Wall/mines everything but a few entry points :P

Seriously though, every time a serious effort has been made to enforce the border, it has worked.

Only for ashort time. It like than unpopular to the dumb america people leader like Castor visit the UN the NYC can put thousand's of extras police on duty for ashort while by put cop from other duties, pay extras for overtime duty. To close our border to cause econcial harm to america also as we now have 90% of our comuser good make oversea, we needed to import certain raw material (like Tin, oil, steels, ores for many metals we use).

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Ah, but it has already been shown that it is not the delivery vehicle that is the threat. Regardless how the device is delivered, it is still the threat.

Did you miss my other two posts? It is not a usable threat unless it can be connected to them. That's what gives them diplomatic teeth.

[Dauphin]

I would think it quite easy to connect it to the perpetrator, especially if they wanted it to be connected to them.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This bit is going to be really, really, really tough to pull off.

But you make it sound so easy.

I've got a nuclear device in the hold of my fishing boat and you are trying to catch me? You know, this thing could go boom at the wrong time.

(Or not go off at all. Annoying things, these nukes.)

The best you could do is to try to sink the boat before it gets to the destination.

In other words, it's the only thing you bothered to think up so you could easily dismiss any opposition to your brilliant plan. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, one might want to do other things like, oh.... find out who sent it? Figure out what harbors it's chugged into in the past? Little things like that.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I would think it quite easy to connect it to the perpetrator, especially if they wanted it to be connected to them.

Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

Besides, if the FBOD would work so much better and easier than ICBMs, why are nations like North Korea, Syria, and Iran commiting so much of their meager resources to developing ICBMs?

Like I said, Kim isn't lobbing fishing boats over Japan.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Only for ashort time. It like than unpopular to the dumb america people leader like Castor visit the UN the NYC can put thousand's of extras police on duty for ashort while by put cop from other duties, pay extras for overtime duty. To close our border to cause econcial harm to america also as we now have 90% of our comuser good make oversea, we needed to import certain raw material (like Tin, oil, steels, ores for many metals we use).

about the only thing that we need to import is oil, for now. Now as I stated, my plan isn't to end all trade, it is to have all goods come into a few remote ports, and from there have intra-US deliverers send it to whatever wallmart its headed to.

[chequita guevara]

Yep, you're either clueless or insane.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sinapus
(Or not go off at all. Annoying things, these nukes.)

It's also possible that a very large asteroid will strike Earth in the next hour, wiping out 99% of the lifeforms. The mechanics of a nuclear device is so simple that the chance of it not going boom when asked to is practically nil.

I don't think anybody is going to gamble on the chance of a nuclear device not working.

Originally posted by Sinapus
In other words, it's the only thing you bothered to think up so you could easily dismiss any opposition to your brilliant plan. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, one might want to do other things like, oh.... find out who sent it? Figure out what harbors it's chugged into in the past? Little things like that.

Oh really? I bet that the people behind the scene would have never thought about these things.

Besides, a vapourised boat does not provide much to work on.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

As BC said before, the side that predicted the event in advance.

[MORON]

Closing trade? In Civ terms, it would be the difference between demo and commie in terms of income....

If one have 53bil, one would be better off investing in boarder control which is a threat now and here, with benefits visible the second something goes though, rather than something that protects against no real threat now and very few in the future.

Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

It is petty easy to leave a trail if you intend to. The attacker can even broadcast the event live on to make it public.

Besides, if the FBOD would work so much better and easier than ICBMs, why are nations like North Korea, Syria, and Iran commiting so much of their meager resources to developing ICBMs?

The problem with smuggling is that it is not as effective as a defensive deterent. Also ICBMs are prestige projects.