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

[ErikM]

Originally posted by mindseye

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.

Spot on, Mindsye.

[:) Smiley]

People can sneak bombs in on fishing boats, on the backs of donkeys, etc.- but we got ways to stop them. They launch a nuke at us though, no shield, no L.A.

Is it $53billion handy? Not by itself, though technological spin offs might make it so.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Smiley
People can sneak bombs in on fishing boats, on the backs of donkeys, etc.- but we got ways to stop them.

As Che already said in this thread,

Originally posted by Che Guevara

Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before.

Originally posted by Smiley

They launch a nuke at us though, no shield, no L.A.

No L.A., no their homeland. Just which part of this do you think they won't understand?

Seriously, I want an answer. Why do you (or any other shield supporters) think that MAD somehow doesn't apply to "rogue" nuclear states?

Is it $53billion handy? Not by itself, though technological spin offs might make it so.

"Might" make it so. Thanks, I'm feeling a lot better about that fifty-three billion knowing that it might provide a useful spin-off technology. Wait! Wouldn't it maybe be better to invest the $53bn directly into researching those useful spin-off techs? Wouldn't that benefit our country more than spending it on a military system that could be defeated by a ... fishing boat??

I mean, what's the 53 billion get us? In what way are we safer? We wouldn't be safer by spending that $53bn on intelligence against terrorism, or ten new aircraft carriers instead?

[mindseye]

Okay, I just want to check: is anyone still arguing that the missile shield will provide any useful defensive value?

In light of the fact that even a 100% effective shield can be so easily circumvented by land, sea or air (e.g. by semi, small ship, or 2-engine prop plane), it essentially provides no useful defensive value against a determined nuclear attacker, right?

$53 billion is a pretty staggering sum to spend on a defensive system that effectively provides no defensive value.

These missile shield threads all go the same way. Once it's pointed out how easily the US borders are penetrated every day by the drug and illegal alien trades, there's really nothing left to argue. It's Maginot Time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


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.

And why on Earth would NK attack SK with 600,000 SK troop and an American tripwire? And given our nuclear deterrent, what is the point of a missile shiled when NK must be aware is they nuke us, they end up as glass?

No one here pushing for this untested system has yet to make an arguement for why deterence is no longer valid. That 6000 strategic warheads are more than enough a defense against an ICBM launched by a state becuase there is a return address that is known in that case.

Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly.

[GePap]

So in the NK example, a real working missile defense would utterly devalue an NK nuclear deterrent, thus giving the US the upper hand to threaten NK with an attack (and a cost free nuclear retaliation if NK bombs Seoul) to force them to do as we want.

The Chinese, who have currently a small strategic arsenal, understand this sort of applies to them as well.

[DinoDoc]

I don't really see why NK needs nukes anyway. The way they seem to be armed out the wazoo and all of it pointed at Seoul (who strangely see NK as being less of a threat than the US) kind of makes attacking them foolhardy to begin with.

[GePap]

Becuase in the end, while their attack would cause massive destruction in SK, at the end even on the conventional end they lose that fight-their equipment is antiquated compared to the US and South Korea, certainly their air defenses would not be able to do much for long against the US and SK- they are vulnerable to cut off if the Chinese simply cut their fuel supplies, and they no longer have Soviet hosts-and NK and China are not so friendly as some people wrongly imagine, plus China and South korea are building closer and closer ties. Add to that that as big as NK army is, SK's military is comparable, and in fact, SK has bigger reserves than NK, simply due to SK having a much larger population and universal male service.

With a nuke to threaten even greater damage they prevent a fight from even starting. Lets not forget the whole gun-ho lets get NK attituted last May.

[Kuciwalker]

[q] Originally posted by 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.[q/]

This sort of system wouldn't be limited to covering the US. It wouldn't be that difficult to cover our allies, too.

Plus, I bet the US wouldn't be as hesitant if they threatened to blow up, say, Paris

Wrt selling bomgs and uranium - you don't need ICBM tech for that. This is not a deterrent against nukes, it's against ICBM's. And if the ICBM is useless as leverage to NK, it won't be any more useful to Iran or whatever other country would want it, so they wouldn't buy it. And if they DID buy it, whoop-de-doo. It would be useless.

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?

Didn't I just explain why this would be worthless as such if we could shoot down their missiles?

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

Touche. Not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
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?

Probably, if we were attacking.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Even if this were true, do you really think it is worth $53B ??

Sure.

Remember, we get way more than ABM out of this. All of it ends up benefitting the whole country, in the form of new technologies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly.

What would be wrong with a US nuclear monopoly

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by GePap
Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly.

What would be wrong with a US nuclear monopoly

Are you total supid man or than Bush Strom Trooper. First I beleive that China, and Russia will launch than attack on use before we can full employ than ABM system. The MAD complex kept the peace for 54 years there was no gobal World War like WWII. World WAr II started about 20 year after WWI ended.
American people are afraid to die to keep gobal peace in case our evil government decide to started WWIII. Than ABM system isnot than defensive system it is than offenseive system. In some culture wear weapons at social event was allow as everone wore weapons on they person. But no one was allow to wear weapon and armour at socical event as the wearing of armour was seeing as you have hostile intention. In some cities there where law that forbit the wearing of armour while staying in the cities, city guard while on duty where allow to wear armour with weapon. Traveller to the cities where given time to find than place to stay than remore they armour.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kucinich

This sort of system wouldn't be limited to covering the US. It wouldn't be that difficult to cover our allies, too.

First off, I don't recall any plan from the administration to extend the shield over its allies, much less any other possible target. Can you elaborate?

More importantly, why do you think that the US and its allies are the only nations anyone would target with a nuclear missile? Will the shield be extended to cover Pakistan, for example?

Wrt selling bomgs and uranium - you don't need ICBM tech for that. This is not a deterrent against nukes, it's against ICBM's.

Sorry, my bad. Scratch "uranium". Bombs and technology still stand however. There is a large and lucrative world market for missiles and missile tech. Just ask the North Koreans. Remember what was hidden in the hold of that ship intercepted on its way to Yemen about a year ago?

And if the ICBM is useless as leverage to NK, it won't be any more useful to Iran or whatever other country would want it, so they wouldn't buy it. And if they DID buy it, whoop-de-doo. It would be useless.

"Whoop-de-doo"? Your argument seems to assume that the only reason anyone would build an ICBM is to use it against the US, or as a bargaining chip with the US.

Perhaps you have already forgotten Monk's remark about lobbing a missile over Japan, for example.

Didn't I just explain why this would be worthless as such if we could shoot down their missiles?

Actually, you didn't. You only addressed two items on the list: use against other targets (which you mistakenly assumed must be US allies), and uranium sales.

You didn't address other motives such as prestige, bargaining chip, arms and technology sales, attacks on US military targets outside the shield.

Touche. Not.

Wow, that was erudite. Do you really need for me to explain the irony of his reference to fishing boats? I was hoping to save the keystrokes.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by mindseye
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?

Probably, if we were attacking.

If we were attacking, why wouldn't we just pre-emptively take out their ICBMs before they launch? A lot easier and cheaper than erecting a Maginot missile shield.