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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
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.

Why are countries like NK developing ICBM's, then?

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Are you saying that NK having a nuke doesn't give them leverage?

To clarify for the n-th time:
NK will get a lot of diplomatic leverage from having a nuke.
US will not get any extra leverage from having a missile shield.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Tin is than very useful metal that is alloy to other metal to make usefull thing like the metal we use to make election contention stay together with each other. Your hateful plan will never work you just want to isolate the america people from idear like Islam is than peaceful religion which will lead to than world government as the UN is only than temp stop on the way to than world government.

My hateful plan closes some harbors and moves their business to other harbors.

[mindseye]

edit: add image

[mindseye]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Again, if that is in fact the case, why are they bothering to develop them, and why are they throwing such a fit over our missle defense?

Originally posted by Kucinich

Why are countries like NK developing ICBM's, then?

I think there are a number of motivations.

Firstly, it's an excellent attention-getting bargaining chip. It can certainly bring the Big Guys to the table. Who knows, maybe they’ll even build nuclear power plants in your country for you. It's a respect, prestige and status project, gaining entry for your country into the small and elite club of "nuclear powers". As every Civ2 player can attest, a nuclear sabre to rattle adds to your diplomatic portfolio. Also, exporting the technology or hardware can provide a lovely amount of hard foreign currency, if you need that kind of thing (as NK desperately does).

---

I forgot to address this before ...

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

If you understand that, you will understand why Kim lobs missles over Japan, and not fishing boats.

It was wonderfully ironic that you said this, as North Korea has made extensive use of a different weapon in the waters around Japan: high-speed faux fishing boats, which it uses in its intelligence gathering and espionage operations.

Using a fishing boat for military purposes! What a crazy, unlikely idea, eh?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ErikM

To clarify for the n-th time:
NK will get a lot of diplomatic leverage from having a nuke.
US will not get any extra leverage from having a missile shield.

But NK's leverage from getting an ICBM (different from a nuke) will be gone.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
I think there are a number of motivations.

Firstly, it's an excellent attention-getting bargaining chip. It can certainly bring the Big Guys to the table. Who knows, maybe they’ll even build nuclear power plants in your country for you. It's a respect, prestige and status project, gaining entry for your country into the small and elite club of "nuclear powers". As every Civ2 player can attest, a nuclear sabre to rattle adds to your diplomatic portfolio.

All of which is gone if your ICBM is worthless.

Remember, they're not just trying for nukes, they also want the missiles.

Also, exporting the technology or hardware can provide a lovely amount of hard foreign currency, if you need that kind of thing (as NK desperately does).

And why are those other people trying to get ICBM's?

It was wonderfully ironic that you said this, as North Korea has made extensive use of a different weapon in the waters around Japan: high-speed faux fishing boats, which it uses in its intelligence gathering and espionage operations.

It is wonderfully ironic that you tell us this - it confirms his point. Those are NOT advertised, NOT used as a way to threaten Japan. Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

Launching missiles is not merely a gesture.

[Kuciwalker]

When they don't hit anything, it is.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Kucinich
But NK's leverage from getting an ICBM (different from a nuke) will be gone.

For the (n+1)st time, for especially gifted: no, it won't be gone because you cannot hit ICBM with a 100% success probability. Is US willing to take a 5% chance that aforementioned ICBM will hit LA? I doubt it, barring Bush reelection or other disasters.

[CharlesBHoff]

Than better defence might be finding away to generate a field around than area which will make than nuclear explosive inpossible to happen.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ErikM
For the (n+1)st time, for especially gifted: no, it won't be gone because you cannot hit ICBM with a 100% success probability. Is US willing to take a 5% chance that aforementioned ICBM will hit LA? I doubt it, barring Bush reelection or other disasters.

For the (n+2)nd time, for especially gifted: we're not talking about US leverage.

NK's leverage (from the ICBM) will be gone. The question to ask is "will NK risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 5% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?" (btw, the answer is no.)

The US already isn't going to attack NK because of their conventional arsenal pointed at Seoul.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kucinich

All of which is gone if your ICBM is worthless.

You can still threaten to use the ICBM against other countries (except maybe Canada), you can stilll use it on the US if you use a different delivery platform, you can still use it on US military targets outside the "shield", you can still sell bombs, uranium, or technology, etc.

And why are those other people trying to get ICBM's?

Didn't I just answer that? You even quoted it! Is there some nation developing nuclear weapons that is not interested in prestige, a bargaining chip, foreign currency, sabre rattling, etc?

It is wonderfully ironic that you tell us this - it confirms his point. Those are NOT advertised, NOT used as a way to threaten Japan. Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

Wow, when you miss a point, you really miss it.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kucinich

The question to ask is "will NK risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 5% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?" (btw, the answer is no.)

Is the answer different without a "shield"? I.e., do you think NK would risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 99% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?

"Shield" supporters often ignore the existing mechanics of MAD.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
NK's leverage (from the ICBM) will be gone.

Even if this were true, do you really think it is worth $53B ??