ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


What if someone did launch 1 single nuclear missile at a target? If that happened, MAD would have failed.

What should the US do if NK launched 1 single nuclear missile at say Japan? Should we:
a) immediately launch a large nuclear attack at NK.
b) retaliate with a single nuclear missile of our own.
c) wait and see. the missile might miss or be a dud.
d) retaliate with a conventional attack only.
e) do nothing. It was just 1 missile, and retaliating will only escalate things even worse.

Well, E is not a very probable outcome.

If it was a nuclear attack against a third party, then the response would be based on the damage done. Any attack would be an act of war and thus full conventional retaliation would be in order. Possible nuclear retaliation would really be based on the damage done. The more destructive the nuclear attack, the more likely a retaliatory nuclear strike would become.

Of coruse, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war, hence if NK launches a nuclear missile, shield or not, war has begun.

So the question is no just will some nut try for a single nuke (Why anyways?), but war or not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If there were any around, but more likely he is scared.

Of your rantings?

You have yet to pose a coherent arguement.

I would be more likely tiffed and annoyed by having to "argue" with you. All Fezists are more bother than they are worth.

[Patroklos]

That's the whole point of MAD, Patroklos

Wrong team.

Container Ships have nothing to do with this. The thread is based on some stupid notion that the ANM system doesn't work as it is supposed to or was some how techincally flawed.

That is wrong. It is working better than it should right now and is actually giving us real protection before it was scheduled too.

Whether we need that protection is not the point of this thread.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Of course, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war, hence if NK launches a nuclear missile, shield or not, war has begun.

This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

[Patroklos]

I would be more likely tiffed and annoyed by having to "argue" with you.

Typical G, scared to actually say anthing in rebuttal for fear of looking stupid.

Much easier to just unilaterally declare victory

Merry Christmas.

[Patroklos]

Of coruse, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war

Yep, the miltary doesn't realize a nuclear strike means war. You are sp smarrrrrrt.

Please continue, this is starting to get good.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

??

If A guy shoots at you, and misses, you would not shoot back? Having shot one missile, obviously this regime has no qualms about shooting, and maybe next time they won't be intercepted.

An act of war is an act of war. Besides, why on Earth would NK simply just shoot a nuclear missile, which obviously they would intent to do damage, and just sit there otherwise? This makes no sense. You shoot a missile on purpose, you have declared war- you either go all out, or you don't act at all.

[DRoseDARs]

Container ships have EVERYTHING to do with this. They are the more likely delivery system/component that could be used by a more likely enemy. US ports are still woefully undersecured due to underfunding, yet this boondoggle is being deployed despite an unacceptable failure rate IN RIGGED TESTS for the sole purpose of making President Bush look good by fulfilling his campaign promise of deploying the first batteries by Election Day, 2004.

[Patroklos]

This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

That first strike will most certainly be followed or be concurent with conventional attacks.

Like Master of the Obvious said, the first strike is war, whether you retaliate or not. Just because you pawned someone in what amounts as the first battle doesn't mean the war is over. Not to mention any country that would initiate a first strike need some serious internal changes.

[Arrian]

Edited, but you were too fast. I confused you and The Diplomat. My bad.

Container Ships *do* have something to do with this, although the connection is definitely indirect. What I'm saying is that, while ABM is something I'd want if I had unlimited resources, we don't have unlimited resources. Therefore, I'd rather our resources be devoted to more pressing things - threats I consider to be more clear & present, such as nukes being delivered via container, etc.

And the thread has become about whether we need ABM or not, so that's what the current discussion is about. Besides, the OP was thin cover for not wanting ABM in the first place.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Container ships have EVERYTHING to do with this. They are the more likely delivery system/component that could be used by a more likely enemy. US ports are still woefully undersecured due to underfunding, yet this boondoggle is being deployed despite an unacceptable failure rate IN RIGGED TESTS for the sole purpose of making President Bush look good by fulfilling his campaign promise of deploying the first batteries by Election Day, 2004.

Containers are important, just not in this thread.

And of course the test was rigged, it is a test, it has to be by definition. What you don't know is what aspect of the system was being tested in this instance.

You in fact know nothing other than a test was damages. I think the fact that the testers want to see what happens throughout the test should have shut you all up seeing how simple and logical that comment is. You all are just whining because you like it now.

[DRoseDARs]

There's testing a system, then there's rigging a test. I'm disturbed that you don't know the difference.

Ok Fez, give Patroklos his account back. You've had your fun.

Edit: Added the smiley so that Fez doesn't blow a gasket.

[Patroklos]

I agree completely with you that ABM is not as important as container security, but if you want to talk about impossible goals then you have picked a good one.

20 billion on ABM, pales in comparison to the money it would take to secure even half the containers. That is before subtracting all the money lost for having such an intrusive and slow system interfereing with international trade.

That type of security is impossible for the type society we live in. The people here on apolyton are all the proof anyone needs of that.

[Patroklos]

Okay then break it down for me. Why is have a specific data point of interest for a single test, which is not possible to observe in foul weather, amount to rigging?

Remember what you don't know about the nature of the test (I don't know either, but my premise doesn't require me to).

[DRoseDARs]

They make these devices that detect radioactivity. Would it truly be THAT difficult to check a ship as it comes to port? Chemical or biological agents are another matter that, yes, would be difficult to deal with from a security standpoint, but the focus of this thread seems to be on nukes.

National security trumps international trade if the US government gets serious about securing our ports.