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

[Az]

MORON!!!!!!!!

where have you been?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

Oh, so you weren't speaking of an accidental detonation. I'm not gambling on it not working, I'm pointing out pitfalls you are deliberately ignoring.

As for "simple", that only tells me that you have absolutely no clue as to how much precision in design and how much regular maintenance is required to keep an nuclear warhead operational. The technology is known, the concept is rather simple in the Cliff's Notes description, the excecution... well, that's a bit more difficult than you think.

It's not like you can build one using an ACME Nuclear Physics Home Science Kit and store it in your closet for years until you need it. Of course, you'll ignore this and handwave with some similar remark below about the "people behind the scene" thinking of everything and having some cunning plan to get around it.

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

...and instantly thwart it, riiiiiight. Guess what? I'll bet there are other people behind the scene working to make your little scenario seem not all as easy as you want it to be.

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

Oh well, guess we'd better not bother trying and surrender completely.

[Joseph]

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

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Did you read at all, or are you just stupid? IT DOESN'T WORK.

If it doesn't work, it's a WASTE OF MONEY.

It's supposed to begin implementation Sept. 30. This isn't some far off, future date. It's this year, and the thing has ZERO ability to do what it is supposed to do.

How is something that DOESN'T WORK prevent NK from nuking us?

Some said we would never fly faster than the speed of sound. It was wall and we hit it, we would died. Guess what.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dauphin


So if a nuclear bomb goes off in New York, Washington, Los Angeles or wherever, but no-one knows who's responsible, then its not a real threat?

In a few hours we would know where the bomb was build. The only question after that is who did they give the bomb to.

[Kuciwalker]

As TMM has pointed out, missile defense isn't supposed to protect us against being nuked, it's supposed to make it so that countries like NK that have a few ICBM's don't gain diplomatic leverage.

You can't threaten "we'll send in the FBOD if you don't do X" very well. Otherwise, countries like NK wouldn't be working on ICBM's in the first place!

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Kucinich
As TMM has pointed out, missile defense isn't supposed to protect us against being nuked, it's supposed to make it so that countries like NK that have a few ICBM's don't gain diplomatic leverage.

You can't threaten "we'll send in the FBOD if you don't do X" very well. Otherwise, countries like NK wouldn't be working on ICBM's in the first place!

What leverage? Suppose for a second that it works and has a success rate of 95% (which is a lot better than the probability of hitting a cruise missile for any existing air defense system, but Ok). Are you saying US is going to risk a war with NK because the chance of NK hitting LA is only 5%?

Although if Bush gets reelected, well, anything is possible

[Cyclotron]

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

Originally posted by Joseph
Some said we would never fly faster than the speed of sound. It was wall and we hit it, we would died. Guess what.

So, because scientists say it can't be done, it must therefore be possible?

Way to be scientific, there. Any other delightful absurdities you'd like to share?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by ErikM

What leverage? Suppose for a second that it works and has a success rate of 95% (which is a lot better than the probability of hitting a cruise missile for any existing air defense system, but Ok). Are you saying US is going to risk a war with NK because the chance of NK hitting LA is only 5%?

Although if Bush gets reelected, well, anything is possible

Are you saying that Kim will risk a war with the U.S. if there is a 95% chance of his ace in the hole being a deuce?

It's not about what we think -- it's about what they think.

...and when I see that a lot of people who don't like us are having fits about us "wasting money" on a "dead end" (which, ultimately, leaves us, an opponent, weaker), I have to wonder why.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yep, you're either clueless or insane.

its what the second largest economy in the world does with air travel.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kucinich
As TMM has pointed out, missile defense isn't supposed to protect us against being nuked, it's supposed to make it so that countries like NK that have a few ICBM's don't gain diplomatic leverage.

You can't threaten "we'll send in the FBOD if you don't do X" very well. Otherwise, countries like NK wouldn't be working on ICBM's in the first place!

How do you gain diplomatic leverage from a system that you just said does not actually work?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The whole point of having a nuclear device is to say, "if you push me too far, I'll use it".

Part and parcel of that is the ability to deliver it in such a manner that it unmistakably came from you. A theat that cannot be credited to you is no threat at all.

The "Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM" (let me count those O's...yep, right number) has two flaws, in that it would be too slow to respond to the kind of emergency that would provoke a nuke strike in the first place, and that it's much too anonymous -- too many groups could conceivably claim responsibility, for varying reasons.

Flaw One: Delivery Time
If delivery time is that important, the weapon could easily be pre-positioned. It could be sitting in a foreign-registered prop plane on a small Mexican airfield, or in the hold of a small cargo ship anchored just outside Boston harbor. This kind of delivery option is still far cheaper and easier - by orders of magnitude - than developing, deploying and maintaining intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Flaw Two: Anonymity
If they really do want to claim credit, there are very easy fool-proof ways to do it (e.g. alerting the US five minutes before detonation, a pre-dated communication, etc).

Finally, I disagree with your contention about "the whole point of having a nuclear device". A nuclear attack on the US would provide an American leader with carte blanche for whatever retaliation was desired. What leader would expect to survive vaporizing Los Angeles?

If the US really did need to threaten a nation in a manner so extreme as to give cause to that nation to contemplate a nucear attack on the US (with all the ensuing consequences), that extreme threat could easily include pre-emptively disabling the nation's tiny nuclear arsenal (remember, it must be a very small arsenal or it could overwhelm the "shield" anyway).

Any other flaws?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

While the shield might turn effective some day, I think it protects from the wrong kind of threat.

It is much more likely IMO that terrorists sneak a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb into the united states and let it explode there than that they'll launch it into space.
I do not think any state will launch a nuclear strike against the US. It would be a total suicide mission not only for themselves but for their people as well. Considering what Kim Jong thinks of his oh-so great country I dont think he'll ever commit such a step.

The main threat are terrorist organizations who have proven a lot of times that their own life does not matter much to them. But it is very unlikely terrorists can gain hold of a missle silo and the launch codes and even more know how to program these.

BINGO!

The shield will be an enormously expensive defense against the least likely form of nuclear attack, a Maginot Line in the sky.

Given that the US' resources are not infinite, we should be wisely allocating our defense funds to attempt to ward off the most likely forms of attack.

Those billions could be far better spent on intelligence, monitoring terrorist groups, tracking down missing weapons-grade uranium, busting weapons smugglers, keeping ex-Soviet defense officials from pawning nukes, etc. All of which would contribute far more meaningfully to our nation's defense than the shield boondoggle.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by ErikM

Are you saying US is going to risk a war with NK because the chance of NK hitting LA is only 5%?

It's more probable that they will risk a war with North Korea if they know that the North Koreans have a helpful Panamanian or Liberian registered cargo ship in Los Angeles with a bomb ready to go off. Think of all the urban renewal projects no longer having to be funded, all the street gang members vapourized, the smog problem gone, all those Hollywood wives finally achieving the hair colour and body mass they've been longing for so much.... not to mention all the WeHo homos and Hollywood liberals reduced to glassy smears.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Sinapus

Oh well, guess we'd better not bother trying and surrender completely.

We don't need to surrender completely, Rather, we need to realistically calibrate our defenses and limited defense resources to guard against the most likely risks.

A suicidal ICBM attack on LA is just not very likely.

However, as recent history has sadly shown, a terrorist "dirty bomb" may be.

[chequita guevara]

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

Originally posted by Joseph
Some said we would never fly faster than the speed of sound. It was wall and we hit it, we would died. Guess what.

So you think we should have given money to scientists to deploy faster-than-sound technology in WWI? I'm really fascsinated to hear how that would work. Maybe we should have sent a man to the moon in 1945 when we got our hands on a V-2 rocket.

Originally posted by Whoha
its what the second largest economy in the world does with air travel.

The thing about planes is, they need to land. Modern planes need certain rair places to land. It makes it much easier to track, unless you're flying a little Sandpiper Cub, which has many more possibilities, including secret landing fields, like they use to smuggle drugs.

I'm not sure you really, truly, comprehend the size of the U.S. border. If it were so easy to control what comes into and out of the United States, they would have done it by now. We put farm more effort into drug interdiction today than we did 25 years ago, and many times the amount of drugs are still coming in to the U.S. Certainly without that effort, far more would be coming in, but the sealing the border is basically about as usefull as a fishing seine is at catching water.