Shields Up!

[chequita guevara]

If it were a 10% chance it might be worth it. We could fire ten of the things and have a halfway decent shot at bringing one down.

However, outside any rigged tests, this thing has only missed. So far we have a 0% chance of an actually deployed weapon of working. This isn't about testing any longer. Sure, we'll keep testing newer models, but this twenty billion was a 100% waste. They should have given it to me for all the good it will do.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ok, see, nye...

the argument most often used to justify the development of the ballistic missile shield is not the logical and cogent argument of nkorean nukes hitting the united states.

it's the one that i pointed out earlier, which mentions something about al-qaeda getting nukes somehow and then detonating them in the united states. somehow, a ballistic missile shield is supposed to protect against a nuke sent in on a boat or a car, according to the people who use that argument--and believe me, that's pretty much the only argument i ever hear.

Can you provide a source where the missile shield is being deployed because of AQ?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it were a 10% chance it might be worth it. We could fire ten of the things and have a halfway decent shot at bringing one down.

However, outside any rigged tests, this thing has only missed. So far we have a 0% chance of an actually deployed weapon of working. This isn't about testing any longer. Sure, we'll keep testing newer models, but this twenty billion was a 100% waste. They should have given it to me for all the good it will do.

The same thing was once said by navy people about aircraft sinking ships. Even more army officers scoffed at tanks and thought them nothing more than expensive support for infantry. Would it have been a good idea to stop trying while people elsewhere moved ahead with technology?

[monkspider]

The problem is aircraft carriers and tanks represented the vanguard of a new era of warfare, whereas ICBMs represent an era that is clearly behind us. A more apt analogy would be the Maignot Line or say, the Battleship Yamato.

[Az]

The problem is aircraft carriers and tanks represented the vanguard of a new era of warfare, whereas ICBMs represent an era that is clearly behind us. A more apt analogy would be the Maignot Line or say, the Battleship Yamato.

ummm... You would be correct in your analogy if the USA would be developing a new ICBM...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


The CIA estimates otherwise. Of course, you might be right and the CIA might be dead wrong, but how can we bank on your opinion among the rest?

What is the CIA saying? I thought that the latest estimates were either 1/3 or 1/2 the way to LA.

I wrote that from memory though, so I could be dead wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What?

If I wanted to launch an ICBM from France against the US I would do it by sending the missile northeast, not west.

So deploying missiles in the West and North is simply a question of ballistics, not of politics.

[KrazyHorse]

The point of ICBMs is that they go suborbital. You get a tremendous boost if you launch in the same direction that the Earth rotates (from West to East).

[DanS]

What is the CIA saying?

Last year (2 years ago?), they estimated that NK could nuke the West coast.

[Q Classic]

Can you provide a source where the missile shield is being deployed because of AQ?

i didn't say the missile shield is being deployed because of aq.

what i said was that its justificiation, heard and read in many a right-wing rag, is that we need it because of aq, not so much because of nk.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


Last year (2 years ago?), they estimated that NK could nuke the West coast.

As I recall they said that NK could not yet reah the West Coast, but could given another decade of missile development.

[Kuciwalker]

Last time this issue came up, the argument for it basically boiled down to the fact that it deterred 3rd-world countries (like Iran or NK) from even trying to develop ICBM's, because they'd have to build a lot more for the missiles to be a useful deterrant - basically, it raises the bar for joining the nuclear club.

[DanS]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/

[DanS]

what i said was that its justificiation, heard and read in many a right-wing rag, is that we need it because of aq, not so much because of nk.

Give up your tired strawman! Nobody here is arguing that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I see that you think your argument should figure in calculations in Washington. Sorry to disappoint, but your opinion means squat. So does mine.

Again, you missed it completely. The discussion is not about whether the pork distributors care about what any of us say or not, but about whether the "Missile Shield" can really defend against nuclear attacks from the so called "rogue states."

Originally posted by notyoueither
But I do think to myself, if I were an American would I rather spend zero and have zero defence against Kim going gaa gaa when senility hits, or spend 20 billion and have at least a ten percent chance that his parting gift to the USA gets stopped?

This is a rather obvious False Dilemma, don't you think?

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmmmm, what makes you think that some loons with a few missiles won't ever try to really heat things up for the Great Satan?

That is something for you to establish.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Don't you think it might be wise for the Yanks to get ahead of that partticular game rather than play catch up, one more time?

Sure, but clearly this is not the way to do it.