ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by mindseye
Building this system is like spending a small fortune to burglar-proof the chimney of a house that has no locks on its windows or doors.

Would the house be any more secure? No.

Even if the anti-burglar chimney system was 100% effective, the house would be no more secure as long as the doors and windows could not be locked.

The owner would simply be poorer by one small fortune. Or worse, the owner may develop a false sense of security and forget about his doors and windows hanging open.

Debating the potential level of effectiveness of the chimney system is not useful. Even at 100% it's useless. Debating whether or not there exists a burglar who would bypass an open door to try the chimney is equally pointless. As a defensive system, it is simply of nil value as long as the doors and windows cannot be secured.

Can't protect against everything, then don't bother to protect against anything, right?

Why bother with an Army, a Navy, and an Airforce in the first place? In the worst case, it's all been a colossal waste of money anyway, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

So, he's unpredictable, and he's sharpening knives, but the United States should take no steps to improve protection for North America, is that it? Have I got that straight?

...

go back and read the one and only post where i reference ABM. i don't mind ABM, i just don't think this system works, and for you to say that this is the system we should rely on... when riding a bike, i'd rather pay $500 for a helmet that'll stop me from getting a broken neck, rather than pay $500 for a helmet that's nothing more than paper. if i can't get the real helmet, then why not save up for it, while spending the rest of the money to get kneepads and what not?

you'll see that virtually all of my posts have been arguing against the notion that kim is some wild-eyed psycho. he's not. if you look at his behavior, he does play the part perfectly, but what happens when he gets what he wants? he disappears for a while, and builds up a new deck of card tricks. then he waits for an opportune moment to--OMFG HE'S FSCKING CRAZY AGAIN! each time, he walks away with what he wants.

Well good for you. I'm glad that you seem to be tuned into the channels that would have good information on Kim's state of mind. Do you work for PRC or US intelligence?

Kim isn't the only concern, btw, but we could keep arguing about him.

Incidently, he doesn't have to be bat **** crazy right at the moment. The issue is that if he did go over the deep end, and actually use his toys, then what would we do?

It's the potential that is the reason to at least try to defend 'ourselves' from small states with a small number of weapons.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
To counter this possibility, they need to develop new weapons that cannot be stopped by the missile shield. In fact, the Russians are already doing this. Some reports have it that they have successfully tested advanced re-entrant scramjet-assisted vehicles that go at Mach 5+.

Good for them! When do you think NK, Iran, Pakistan, etc, will have such toys?

In the mean time, Russia's gonna feel safe again, right?

[Q Classic]

Well good for you. I'm glad that you seem to be tuned into the channels that would have good information on Kim's state of mind. Do you work for PRC or US intelligence?

hmm... do you have a towel and some club soda? the sarcasm and bile dripping from that line stained the carpet, i think.

besides, i don't have to be tuned into intelligence sources to see his pattern of behavior. just look at the news, and watch for when he does that sort of thing, what's happening in the world, who he does it to, and what's going on in his area. why do you think he's gone so far? he knew bush couldn't deal with him and saddam at the same time. just add two and two, nye. it's not hard at all.

in any case, the rest of what you're saying doesn't really affect our argument. i don't mind abm--i just think this current system we've sunk our money into doesn't work, given the test results, so it's time to go back to the drawing board and start again if we want it.

our argument here, and our only argument here, nye, is whether or not we think kim is insane. you obviously think he is; i do not. since you're too frothing at the mouth to listen to any other side of the argument, and, like most fanatics, like to agglomerate all of your opponents into one big mass, ignoring all of the different variations of belief, i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm actually arguing that no matter how you paint him, Kim is a threat, and the the United States should do what is reasonable to protect against that threat from him or any other source.

[notyoueither]

In other words, whether he is completely mad right this moment isn't really important. I happen to think that he is somewhat less than a completely balanced person. It would be remarkable if he were 'normal' given his background and current status.

What does a person like Kim do when he is terminal and within weeks or days of death? What happens if he snapped under some other strain? What if he just drifts into severe sociopathy? What if he just has a really bad day?

The point is that it is inherently dangerous to have states like NK having nukes, and it is wise to at least try to guard against the use of small numbers of them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good for them! When do you think NK, Iran, Pakistan, etc, will have such toys?

The way the West has been annoying Putin, not that long.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What does a person like Kim do when he is terminal and within weeks or days of death? What happens if he snapped under some other strain? What if he just drifts into severe sociopathy? What if he just has a really bad day?

What if a really big asteroid slams into the Earth and kills us all? What if the sun goes nova in an hour?

Clearly, you can propose as many hypothetical scenario as you want, but they aren't going to support your case.

[notyoueither]

Gee, UR, people in positions like Kim's have done some really nasty stuff. Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Stalin... I don't even really have to mention Hitler or Mao, but I will anyway.

Do you propose that the incidence of asteroid impacts is on the order of frequency as men with absolute power in FUBARed states doing really bad things?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The way the West has been annoying Putin, not that long.

Very good then. It will be a warm end for all of us.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The "irrational leader" scenario doesn't hold water. It assumes that a "nutcase" or desperate leader might not be deterred by MAD, yet for some never-explained reason would be deterred by an ABM system.

What does deterrence have to do with it?

The "irrational leader" scenario is presented as the case when we would actually have to use the ABD system to shoot down a nuke.

Would an "irrational leader" launch their ICBM against a functioning NMD system? Seems unilkely, especially given the ease with which the origin of the missile is ascertained.

If a leader were irrational enough to not be deterred by the existing US nuclear and conventional military power, he is certainly not going to be deterred by an NMD. Why wouldn't he just use another delivery system?

That's the hole in this argument. The NMD buys you nothing.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by notyoueither

It does in a crisis. You want to deliver a nuke via ship? That'll take time. That could also be detected and stopped. There is no stopping an ICBM as things stand and they can deliver their payload in less than an hour after the decision is taken to launch.

Developing and deploying a force of nuclear-armed intercontinental missiles is extremely time-consuming. No one willing to devout that amount of time to develop and deliver a weapon system is going to balk at a few weeks one way or the other, if that's what it takes to nuke the US. Besides, weapons could easily be pre-positioned within American territories or waters.

Delivery time is not that important. The attackers of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attackers both took a great deal of time and care in planning. Delivery time was irrelevant.

Detection (of ship-born weapons) would be extraordinarily difficult, but at least it would deal with a more credible threat than ICBMs, as succesfully-delivered containers of illegal Chinese aliens have already proven.

Crises are not an issue. A weapon could easily be pre-positioned. Besides, it is unwise to assume the only attack would come at a time of crisis, as recent history informs us otherwise.

If a defensive system is only good against certain very specific and highly unlikely forms of attacks, it's not worth investing billions into. The money could be spent far more efficaciously in other ways.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Can't protect against everything, then don't bother to protect against anything, right?

Whoever said that?

This argument usually turns up sooner or later in an NMD thread. Unfortunately, it's just a "false dilemma". There are many alternative ways to more effectively spend defense funds to increase the security of the US.

Why bother with an Army, a Navy, and an Airforce in the first place? In the worst case, it's all been a colossal waste of money anyway, right?

Well, we fund an army, navy, and air force because it is a far more effective way to spend defense dollars. They deal with a credible threat. They have a proven track record of actually providing defensive value.

Unfortunately, defense dollars are not limitless. The funds available for homeland defense and other forms of security are limited enough without spending untold billions on a "missile shield" that buys us nothing in terms of real security.

[Q Classic]

In other words, whether he is completely mad right this moment isn't really important. I happen to think that he is somewhat less than a completely balanced person. It would be remarkable if he were 'normal' given his background and current status.

There is a reason why conservatives love the Dear Leader.

It would be remarkable either of them, given their background and current status, were "normal".

And mindseye, I think nye is arguing that Kim might change from rational to irrational on his deathbed or something like that, and suddenly decide to launch nukes at the US. Whether that's still likely to happen or not is up for debate... I personally don't think it will.

Kim only rattles the nuclear saber when he wants something. It doesn't look like he ever plans on actually using it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye
Would an "irrational leader" launch their ICBM against a functioning NMD system? Seems unilkely, especially given the ease with which the origin of the missile is ascertained.

If a leader were irrational enough to not be deterred by the existing US nuclear and conventional military power, he is certainly not going to be deterred by an NMD. Why wouldn't he just use another delivery system?

then you can get to work on defending against those, as well.