ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[Q Classic]

We have the ultimate deterant : a ****load of our own ICBMs.

This won't work against Iran or NK.

diplomat, why doesn't the fact that we have oodles of icbms deter the nk? why does deterrance fail to work in that particular scenario?

===

Fortunately, you IT types don't run countries.

unfortunately, instead of us it types running it, we have idiots who'd rather get blowjobs and buffoons who'd rather not be bothered with details like signing "we're very sorry to inform you" letters.

If you think for a moment that Kim is a nice, stable, influence with the bomb, you are mad.

not as mad as you are if you think he's completely insane. his moves, as odd and idiotic as they may be, fall into a recurring pattern: lots of loud posturing and bluffing, rummaging around and revealing tantalizing tidbits before hiding them again, and demanding a payoff.

What was the last gem? Something about if Japan didn't continue to give him stuff it would be a declaration or war?

when was this? the only thing i can recall that he's said recently was that international sanctions would be a declaration of war.

I'd really like to see how long he would last if Beijing were threatened with one of his toys. My money would be that N Korea would be 'under new management' in about 48 hours.

'course, it seems like you believe that nkorea is completely china's lapdog. which it isn't. dependency does not equate to control.

===

He says he has warheads? The world says he has warheads? He lobbed a missile over the Japanese mainland?

in this case, 2 and 2 do not necessarily make 4. they may have a primitive warhead. is it light enough to fit at the top of a missile? we don't know. do we want to chance it? not particularly.

===

It could get awefully messy if everyone just poses for points.

it's an awfully thorny situation. so far as i can tell, though, and i believe, is that bush's america doesn't know what the **** to do, nkorea just wants life support, china doesn't want to deal with it, japan's worried that the us doesn't have its **** together and so is starting to do some of it themselves, and skorea's worried that the us doesn't have its **** together and wants to buy the nkoreans off so their precious capital doesn't turn into vapor.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Anyone remember when they started designing the F-22?

So you're saying they should have deployed it after the first test flight? Cuz, uh, that's what they're doing with the ABM. They are DEPLOYING IT!

Do you understand the difference between experimenting on something, and deploying it before it works?

Why do you people keep coming back with the same stupid argument over and over again without ONCE addressing the problem, spending $20 Billion SETTING UP a NON-WORKING system. No one is saying we shouldn't experiment on it.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
diplomat, why doesn't the fact that we have oodles of icbms deter the nk? why does deterrance fail to work in that particular scenario?

Deterrence requires that both sides are thinking rationally. It also requires that neither side feels the situation is hopeless.

In the case of NK, I am not sure that Kim Jong Il is completely rational. He might miscalculate and think that China would support him and therefore that the US would not dare retaliate. He might think that we are bogged down in Iraq and can't retaliate against him. Furthermore, the NK economy is disastrous, and there is a terrible famine. Kim Jong Il may feel that the situation is so bad that he has nothing to lose by invading South Korea.

It seems to me to be a good idea to have some kind of defense system just in case deterrence doesn't work. If there is uncertainty and a chance that deterrence might fail, why gamble with the lives of millions of Americans?

[chequita guevara]

The other side is never rational.

Our side is always rational.

[Arrian]

Kim is a bit of a whackjob, I'll grant that. Hey, the guy's favorite film is Gone with the Wind. But I don't think he's THAT crazy... especially while he has something to lose (this includes his "legacy" and other things that will outlive him, so just putting together a Kim-on-deathbed scenario doesn't cut it). On this we may just have to agree to disagree.

I simply do not see a ICBM threat that is not effectively countered by MAD. I *do* see nuclear weapon threats that a ABM system will do absolutely nothing to stop. Accordingly, IMO, while an ABM system is a nice thing for the wishlist, I'd give it much lower priority than it currently has.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Ever stop to think about why they are deploying it?

Probobly because the second we got hit with an actual missile, you and you ilk would immediatly turn you story to OMFG WHY DO WE NOT HAVE EVEN A BASIC MISSILE DEFENSE AHHHHHHHHH.

Not that deploy means anything in this instance che, because as you either neglected to mention or just don't know **** about (both are equally as likely) the majority of the equipment, or more accuretly put facilities, are STATIONARY!!! How the hell, besides the navy cruiser which is always deployed there anyways, do you deploy it besides building it and running it?

Oh I see Che, because it only has a 60% chance of working right now we should just leave all that infrustructure dormant untill it us fully 100%, because god damn it if it isn't 100% it isn't worth a damn.

So who is wasting money che, you who would rather forgo partial coverage for nothing for another five years, or the military who is delivering early and providing partial service when none was expected and still delivering full service on time.

HDTV has the same problem

Not to mention running it now at the highest possible tempo would only yeild priceless reaserch and trouble shooting data.

Not that you would ever let logic or truth get in the way of your whining, so please proceed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Deterrence requires that both sides are thinking rationally. It also requires that neither side feels the situation is hopeless.

In the case of NK, I am not sure that Kim Jong Il is completely rational. He might miscalculate and think that China would support him and therefore that the US would not dare retaliate. He might think that we are bogged down in Iraq and can't retaliate against him. Furthermore, the NK economy is disastrous, and there is a terrible famine. Kim Jong Il may feel that the situation is so bad that he has nothing to lose by invading South Korea.

Any regime may miscalculate the consequences of their actions. Miscalculation is a arguement for why no one should have ICBM's, not just dicatatorships. Kim has been in power for a decade now- he has not done anything nuts.

It seems to me to be a good idea to have some kind of defense system just in case deterrence doesn't work. If there is uncertainty and a chance that deterrence might fail, why gamble with the lives of millions of Americans?

Gambling with the lives of Americans is exactly what is being done now. The system is not in any way rustworthy now. Why give people a false sense of security, including to decision makers?

[GePap]

Sad to see Patrokolos decline into Fezism.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Arrian
I simply do not see a ICBM threat that is not effectively countered by MAD.

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.

[Patroklos]

Jesus GePap, you usually at least try to say something intelligent before accepting defeat and retreating under the cover fire of insults.

What happened to you?

[DRoseDARs]

He realized the futility of arguing with a Fezist, perhaps?

[Patroklos]

So you're saying they should have deployed it after the first test flight

If we were ever in a situation where we were losing air superiority, and if this is the case it is probobly WWIII, then you can bet your ass every F-22 in the test program would be out there shooting down anything it could.

If we were ever in a situation where our primary defense against ICBMs failed (MAD), which if this is the case it is probobly close to WWIII, then you bet your ass the military would throw whatever functioning parts of the ABM system it had at the problem.

Which of course is what they should be, and are, doing.

[Patroklos]

He realized the futility of arguing with a Fezist, perhaps?

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

[Patroklos]

What should the US do if NK launched 1 single nuclear missile at say Japan? Should we

Probobly none those, because a missle targeting Japan would be in range of the full arsenel of both ours and Japan's navies.

Theatre Ballistic Missile defense has been up and running for years, and actually has gotten much better just recently, it is the ICBMs we have problems with not TBMs.

[Arrian]

What if someone did launch 1 single nuclear missile at a target?

What if [insert something absurdly unlikely here]?

That's the whole point of MAD. The leader of a nation-state would have to be full-on bat**** crazy to order a launch, and his subordinates would have to also be full-on bat**** crazy to follow the order.

Meanwhile, people we know ARE full-on bat**** crazy and have no nation-state to worry about are most likely trying to get a nuke to the USA via container or other non-ICBM delivery method.

-Arrian