Shields Up!

[Kuciwalker]

The point being, if you can get it on a ship in the first place, why bother with a car? Just detonate the bomb in port.

EDIT: And how the hell would the get it onto a plane?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dissident
considering there are 2 countries in the Axis of evil that have nukes (N. Korea and Iran) maybe this isn't a bad idea.

Wow. Someone actually figured it out, and why it's pointed West and North to start with. It only took two pages, but that's OT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You need to expand your posts/page limit .

[Urban Ranger]

I see that our main argument has been going over the head of a lot of people.

[KrazyHorse]

That's funny, because neither of those countries have missiles capable of reaching the US.

[notyoueither]

Not now, or at least they're not supposed to. btw, how do you tell what they really have, unless they play along with you and launch one to Los Angeles as a test?

[KrazyHorse]

Because I doubt the ability of a country such as NK to launch an ICBM successfully against LA without first going through a number of tests.

Right now they can reach about 1/3 of the way to LA.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and by the by, any ICBM launched against the US from anywhere east of the Azores would be sent eastward around the globe to take advantage of rotation of the earth.

[KrazyHorse]

So virtually all land-based threats against US come from North or West.

Only South America is an exception to this.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I see that our main argument has been going over the head of a lot of people.

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

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?

Hmmmm, I think to myself, what would people have said about the US government putting 20 billion more and a major overhaul into anti-terrorism starting in 2000? Would it have seemed cheap? Would people still be beaking off if Atta were in a prison and none of that towers **** or Iraq went down?

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? 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?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because I doubt the ability of a country such as NK to launch an ICBM successfully against LA without first going through a number of tests.

Right now they can reach about 1/3 of the way to LA.

Paraphrase:

The recent raid on Taranto has no impact on our security at Pearl Harbour. The fact that the RN was able to launch that raid had more to do with the conditions of the targeted harbour, even if their aircrews demonstrated great skill and bravery.

Pearl is far too shallow for aerial torpedoes to be used, no matter the skill or bravery of any enemy. Therefore we have nothing to fear from carrier based airpower as a threat to the Pacific Fleet.

Signed
Some USN officer who is about to look like a turkey.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oh, and by the by, any ICBM launched against the US from anywhere east of the Azores would be sent eastward around the globe to take advantage of rotation of the earth.

What?

[Q Classic]

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.

[DanS]

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?

That is the beginning of a good line of reasoning. Further, continuously raising the cost of the threat to the economy of NK and NK wannabes will be beneficial to our long-term defense. Missile defense is one way of raising a barrier to entry to being an effective member of the nuke club. Other measures include sanctions, etc., but NK has already swallowed some of those costs with a smile.

It's expensive to us. I will never discount that fact. We have to continue to evaluate whether the sword or the plowshare is the right way to spend our money. Some days I think it's all a collosal waste of money.

[DanS]

Right now they can reach about 1/3 of the way to LA.

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?