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

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kucinich

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.

What size crystal ball are you using? Sorry, but pure speculation doesn't cut it as a valid argument.

Besides, wouldn't it be more efficient to invest the funds directly into researching those technologies, instead of investing them in a boondoggle in the hopes that they might spawn some sort of useful spin-off tech?

[mindseye]

Challenge to Kucinich and any other missile shield supporters:

No one has yet explained why the mechanics of MAD no longer apply. Why would any nation with a small nuclear force considering a nuclear attack on the US not be deterred by the US' existing retaliatory capability (both nuclear and conventional)?

If they wouldn’t be deterred by that, why would they be deterred from attacking by means of an alternative delivery platform?

By the way, I'm still waiting to see if anyone can identify any meaningful defensive benefit the missile shield will provide.

It's been about ten ABM threads now, no one has yet met this challenge or explained just how the US would be safer from nuclear attack if it deployed a limited missile shield.

I expect this thread to die a similar death within a few posts. All of the usual arguements have been disposed of in the usual manner (with the exception that this time no one raised the bogus "accidental launch" scenario).

[Q Classic]

what mystifies me is this:

how would we know it works? i mean in real-world conditions?

i'm not exactly itching to test to see if it performs as it should when we need it to most, you know?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by 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.

A nuke doesn't change the equation all that much. The devestation an invasion pre-nuke would have been horriffic due to the ROK capital being so close to the DMZ. The only way anybody does anything militarially against them is if the DPRK forces the hand of the West, ie by selling nukes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
A nuke doesn't change the equation all that much. The devestation an invasion pre-nuke would have been horriffic due to the ROK capital being so close to the DMZ. The only way anybody does anything militarially against them is if the DPRK forces the hand of the West, ie by selling nukes.

Well, first, nukes have all sorts of side effects that make 10kilotons of explosive power the old fashioned way less threatening than 10 kilotons of explosives the nuclear way. Second, the NK could always threaten an attack on japan or southern SK as a last ditch effort: aka, we lost conventionally, don;t come for us or we nuke Tokyo! At such a point our nuclear deterent is no longer useful becuase we can achieve the same aim (regime destruction) by conventional means, and in fact would be less likely to Nuke Pyongyang if our forces were nearby and lots of NK refugees running around.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
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?

You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up.

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?

Why would we bother?

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 that market for ICBM (more than just missile) tech exists because ICBM's are useful.

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.

Ah, well, if they want to threaten someone else, best of luck to them.

Really, the only reason someone would want an ICBM would be to threaten the US. For a regional dispute, all they need is a shorter-range missile.

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.

Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
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.

Assuming we can find them. Even a pretty small country like NK is very big.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
What size crystal ball are you using? Sorry, but pure speculation doesn't cut it as a valid argument.

Besides, wouldn't it be more efficient to invest the funds directly into researching those technologies, instead of investing them in a boondoggle in the hopes that they might spawn some sort of useful spin-off tech?

No, because those are side benefits. They mean that the money isn't wasted, and in fact goes straight back into the economy. It doesn't get sucked into some black hole.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
Challenge to Kucinich and any other missile shield supporters:

No one has yet explained why the mechanics of MAD no longer apply. Why would any nation with a small nuclear force considering a nuclear attack on the US not be deterred by the US' existing retaliatory capability (both nuclear and conventional)?

MAD would apply; that's the problem. They now have influence on us. If they can't nuke us, but we can nuke them, not only don't they have influence on us, but we have a LOT of influence with them.

[Q Classic]

even if we did construct a system... how would we know it worked flawlessly under pressure situations?

it's like ufo insurance. how do you prove it, because you sure as hell don't want to really test it.

that said, i don't quite oppose it, but i'm unconvinced that it's needed and think that it might lead to more tension since it could also be used offensively.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by mindseye
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?

You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up.

The point is not the missiles. The point is the warning, tracking, and control systems. You ain't got nothing without them.

Originally posted by Kucinich
And that market for ICBM (more than just missile) tech exists because ICBM's are useful.

No. If your country cannot build ICBMs, you are not in a position to buy them. These are not one shot deal things, they require constant maintenance and you don't have the know-how for it.

Originally posted by Kucinich
Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region.

You have it backwards. Many countries view the "missile shield" as an US gambit to gain a nuclear monopoly, thus is free to blackmail them. This causes an arms race.

[Sinapus]

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

Unfortunately, nuclear dampers from the Traveller game don't exist.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Unfortunately, nuclear dampers from the Traveller game don't exist.

I was useing Space Opera. Than it is not than dampers effect. It also stop earthquakes and vol from blow up.

My Space friend if they want to take over Earth have no fear of Nuclear Weapons they willnot work at all and they are alway on and working compare to useing than missile to shoot down than other missile.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point is not the missiles. The point is the warning, tracking, and control systems. You ain't got nothing without them.

I'm sure you can stick those on boats too. Or satellites. Or just build them where we need them.

No. If your country cannot build ICBMs, you are not in a position to buy them. These are not one shot deal things, they require constant maintenance and you don't have the know-how for it.

what does that have to do with my post?

You have it backwards. Many countries view the "missile shield" as an US gambit to gain a nuclear monopoly, thus is free to blackmail them. This causes an arms race.

And you know what? They're exactly correct!

Except the ONLY people who would be able to start an arms race would be the people the system isn't aimed at in the first place - such as Russia.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, first, nukes have all sorts of side effects that make 10kilotons of explosive power the old fashioned way less threatening than 10 kilotons of explosives the nuclear way. Second, the NK could always threaten an attack on japan or southern SK as a last ditch effort: aka, we lost conventionally, don;t come for us or we nuke Tokyo! At such a point our nuclear deterent is no longer useful becuase we can achieve the same aim (regime destruction) by conventional means, and in fact would be less likely to Nuke Pyongyang if our forces were nearby and lots of NK refugees running around.

NK has chemical weapons deployed as well as explosives, they are pretty well covered as far as obliterating seoul is concerned, until the anti-artillery laser stuff is much more developed.