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

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
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.

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?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Whoha


The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?

The Viking sail across the North Altanic ocean in long ship with the hull being 1 to 3 ft above the water. They found colonies in Iceland, Greenland and New Foundland. Thaqn they where smaller than fishing boat.

[CharlesBHoff]

When gun appear in the 15th century able to penerate any armour that than man can wear. Armour maker make than armour that stop all bullet of it time but it cost 10000 dollar in today money to buy, it weight about 150 to 200 ibs to wear you where unable to do any fast movement of your hands and your hands only did basely movernment very clumdry. Very view brought this armour. The either wore than light breastplate able to defense against sword cut and depence on movenment quickly and taken cover to protect then self against firearm.

[The Mad Monk]

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?

How would we know who was ticked off? There are so many, you know.

[The Mad Monk]

In other words, how does a completely anonymous attack benefit the attacker? How would it be used as leverage? What benefit would it have?

[The Mad Monk]

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

[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.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
In other words, how does a completely anonymous attack benefit the attacker? How would it be used as leverage? What benefit would it have?

So your argument is that we don't need to worry about nuclear bombs coming into ports because no-one can claim responsibility?

All they have to do is say is "A nuclear bomb is going to be detonated on your homeland in the next hour" and that would be pretty conclusive evidence.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by Whoha

There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US though, you should know that.

Shipping a nuclear weapon would be much easier. You only have to get a vessel into the harbor or near the coast.

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

You absolutely must get your money's worth with an atomic bomb.

Own goal!
That's precisely why a missile shield is useless. If the US erects a credible missile shield, who is going to waste the enormous resources required to build an ICBM that will likely go splat against a shield and waste their warhead? They will simply use another delivery system, a delivery system likely to be much cheaper to deploy, much harder for the US to detect, and not leave a tell-tale pointer directly back to the place of origin (as a missile trajectory does). Vaporized ships leave few clues.

Better to let them build the ICBMs, which will waste more of their limited resources, and are easier for the US to detect, monitor, and destroy pre-emptively if necessary.

Missiles are reliable, smuggling is not. How do you know the smuggler won't turn it over to us? They aren't the most reliable business partners as stuff from a couple of months ago with the smugglers holding onto children showed. And all ships are registered, all ships have ports they were just in,etc,etc,etc. This kind of detective work is done.


[QUOTE

With the correct trade/immigration policies we could reduce that to 0% easy, its a totally different problem from blocking an ICBM, which has a 100% chance of hitting its target if they pointed it in the right direction.

Huh? 100% chance? Designing, building, testing, deploying and maintaining an ICBM is a lot harder than deploying a container ship (which you don't even need to build, you can use another nation's).
The kind of enemies that the "shield" is supposed to protect against are not likely to be able to afford the scores of test launches required to assure anything near 100% success rate. Just look at how many rocket failures nations like US, Japan, China, etc have experienced. And if they are able to build that many launchers, they can easily overwhelm the shield anyway.
[/QUOTE]
They can buy missiles from NK as well,everyone that has gone to the expense to develop the bomb has so far also developed and purchased missiles to hit whatever target they set up.

Right now we only have about 10 interceptors, that can and most likely will be ramped up, but before then maintaining the weapons is expensive, so the kind of target we are talking about, like NK with missile tech and a few bombs, would not be able to overload it.

and hey your analogy is good as well, people charging you with swords are pretty damned easy to take out

Sorry, try again. In a room where lots of people are carrying swords around everyday, it would be darn hard to spot a stealthy attacker. A Liberian-registered container ship or Panamanian fishing vessel sailing into New York or LA harbor isn't going to attract much attention. For that matter, a weapon could be pre-positioned far in advance. One could be sitting in the hold of an innocuous ship anchored near Seattle right now.

Summary: the billions spent on the "shield" are utterly wasted in terms of improving our national security. They get us nothing, other than persuading enemies to use cheaper - and possibly more effective - alternatives to ICBMS.

Like I said, correct trade policy. Then having ships pull into ports that aren't basically the middle of nowhere,etc WOULD draw attention to themselves(it would also be a nice subsidy to have delivery to where ever intra-US handled by US deliverers...) And once those measures are taken, then thats that it has to be a missile delivery.

Summary:We really have wasted trillions of dollars on worthless pursuits, we spend 700 billion over what we take in, we have a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, 2.5 trillion dollars worth of property has been sold off to pay for that deficit, 50 billion doesn't even rank. If it wasn't for the space program, or missile defense, or the ENTIRE military spending all of our problems would go away, right? We could afford to finally eliminate poverty, right? Wrong, the amount we spend on these programs is less then any of those numbers I mentioned up there.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Dauphin


So your argument is that we don't need to worry about nuclear bombs coming into ports because no-one can claim responsibility?

All they have to do is say is "A nuclear bomb is going to be detonated on your homeland in the next hour" and that would be pretty conclusive evidence.

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Yeah, becuase everyone knows fishing boats can't go into deep water and that the U.S. tracks every one of the tens of thousnads of "non-ocean-going" boats. This, of course, is why nothing gets smuggled into the United States.

[Whoha]

There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US.

People and equipment get stopped all the time. The people that do the smuggling aren't the most reliable characters on earth, and so on and so forth.

[chequita guevara]

Nothing's 100%, not even ICBMs.

[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).

[Kirnwaffen]

I think a "missile shield" is an integral part of a complete and effective nuclear/chemical/biological defense. I also think it unwise to deploy a system the functionality of which is almost completely untested. Continued research into the field is certainly desirable, but deployment now is a waste of money.