)Also he was just raving about how the missle defense system is a big success! Even though the failure to success ratio is 2:1! That isn't very good. So if nuclear missles were launched towards Chicago, New York, and Atlanta. Only one would make it through. Oh yeah. I say the defense system is a HUGE success so far. And I'm not so sure if this one success was because the military fixed the bugs or if it was a success due to blind luck!
Which one of you were saying that Rush Limbaugh's little theroies are pretty sound except for one small flaw. He rarely knows what he's talking about?
And it was the FIRST test of the revised and REBUILT system, not the same old system they used last time.
You don't equate tests of experimental prototype equipment with final performance, anyway. New technology ALWAYS goes through a test phase before it can be relied upon. That's why the mission to the Moon was Apollo 11, not Apollo 1.
Edison failed something like 10,000 times before he hit upon the solution which allowed him to manufacture the incandescent lightbulb... so that's 10,000 to 1 failure rate... but I don't see you saying that lightbulb technology is unreliable.
Proven technology.
[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
But, here's a question: can the missile system shoot down a missile it doesn't know WHERE and WHEN is in the air? I mean, it's not like Iran is going to be nice enough to call up Dubya and say, "hi, we launched a nuclear missile at D.C. It should be passing over your east coast in about ten minutes..."
It also doesn't protect against the more realistic use of nuclear weapons: smuggled into the U.S., and detonated in a truck or some-such.
MAD works better. Actually, it's not even MAD. Since the major threat is rogue states, it's: "You hit us with one missile, we hit you with fifty." So, really, it's SUICIDE.
Anyway, the missile program sounds nice, but it's a big waste of money. And of course, the Republicans blame the skyrocketting budget on the Democrats ... yeeesh ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Democrats saying that the missle defense system, as it currently is, is a waste of money? Why are they being blamed for the skyrocketing budget?
[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
It doesn't have to be able to. We can detect a nuclear launch anywhere, any time. Satelites are nifty like that. Extrapolating the trajectory is child's play.
Anyway, the missile program sounds nice, but it's a big waste of money.
If you're right, and I'm wrong, we'd waste money. You shouldn't have any problem with that, seeing as you're a Democrat.
If I'm right, and you're wrong, several million people would die.
I pick "A". You should, too, considering the DC/Baltimore area would be a prime target.
MIB:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Democrats saying that the missle defense system, as it currently is, is a waste of money?
So protecting the people of the US is a waste of money to the Democrats? And WHY, exactly, do you elect these people, again?
How does STAR WARS protect against terrorists smuggling a nuke across the Canadian or Mexican borders? Or landing it on the coast (we've got lots of them)? How does STAR WARS prevent nukes from being placed in a truck next to the White House and blowing the city to smitheerens?
It doesn't.
If you want to focus on preventing nuclear attacks, fine. But let's do it realistically. I mean, christ, what are we expecting here, an invasion of Martians?
Speaking of which ... MIB, your spelling sucks.
Overall, I agree with Jeff. Star Wars was the product of Soviet paranoia. Soviet Russia is dead and now Bush is trying to invent a new enemy of the U.S. so he can be the man who made sure we don't get nuked.
If you were Saddam Husien, (husain, husein?) what kind of mass destuction would you prefer. Launching a nuke only to get it shot down, by America's not-so-secret missle defense system, and afterwards, get bombed back into the stone age, OR give someone a passport send him/her to America and have him/her quietly chuck a can of anthrax in to the New York city reservoir? (You see!! I didn't misspell reservoir! I used a dictionary this time! )
[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
The most likely threat is STILL from an ICBM, which China now has, and which N. Korea, Iran, and other states are trying to develop.
And something they're keeping quiet is that a missile-killer could also be utilized as a satellite killer, thus allowing disruption of enemy communications, surveillance, and positioning technology, elements crucial to modern warfare.
MAD is a proven system. The proof is quite simply that we're still here, and we didn't get toasted. The closest we've ever come to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which thankfully, cool heads got us through.
STAR WARS is unproven. While it's fine for the Soviet Cold War, it doesn't strike me as being realistic. First of all, China doesn't exactly seem hell bent on suicide, especially not with the Olympics in a few years. We didn't HAVE trade with the USSR like we have with China. Have you seen all of the products that are made in China that we have? People like to ignore the economic ties.
The damn things are just too dangerous to exist - especially in the hands of nations with (shall we say it politely) unstable governments and undetectable morals. (I know, I know).
We will live to see the US finally decide to launch a pre-emptive world-wide choreographed strike, in which corps of rangers/engineers invade every country with mass weapons, eliminating them.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it will happen. And GDB is just the kind of guy to do it.
I should also let it be known that MY administration will have no interest in 'destroying' China, or, for that matter, any other country (except France.)
Enforced containment, economic and other rewards for actions we approve of and economic and other punishments for actions we disapprove of, and guaranteed total annihilation in the event WE or our allies are attacked first, yes. But other than that, my policy will be hands-off.
However, we have Democratic senators and representatives we could do without... Hmm.... How old do you have to be to run for Congress?
If it ever comes to a massive exchange of nukes, we'll have the U.S., or rather its current government, to thank for it. But hey - what's the price of personal (alas, misguided) heroics, compared to that of world peace and stability?
Saving one city would be worth every penny. Don't you agree?
Besides, who can we possibly have that big of an exchange with? China has, what, twenty nukes, total? The only nuclear arsenal that large aside from ours is Russian, and it probably doesn't even work any more. See, one of the great things about having a capitalist economy is that we can actually afford the darned things in great quantities. Not so with socialists.
As for election age, you have to be twenty-five to be a Representative and thirty to be a Senator. Thirty-five for President and VP, of course.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Guarantee me that por favor.
quote:
Saving one city would be worth every penny. Don't you agree?
Uh...no, not unless it's mine.
I didn't say that they weren't much of a threat. I said that their nuclear arsenals weren't sufficient/effective enough to overload a hypotheitcal shield. They can still nuke us WITHOUT the shield. Thus, we build a shield, and eliminate the threat.
Shouldn't the money funding that thing go toward making sure terrorist groups don't chuck bottles of anthrax or small pox in a major cities reservior or something like that?
How do you propose we do this?
Deal with the threats that can be dealt with. Not all can.
Just so I can get this straight...you pro-missile shield type people can guarantee me that every missile now aimed at Los Angeles will be intercepted and destroyed before they hit my wonderful smog shrouded city.
No. But we CAN guarentee you a significantly higher chance for survival if they're ever launched (considerably higher than the 0% it is now). Sound like a worthy use of your tax dollars?
Now since one of those really neat-o multi megaton multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles can blow the crap out of most of Los Angeles...those are supposed to be godd odds?
Heck, if only 3 of those 14 hit we're screwed and just as dead.
if you want to map a blast go here: Blast Map
That's pretty poor fiscal policy for a bunch of conservative types who moan and groan about the government spending money on...oh education and pansy stuff like that.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
They can still nuke us WITHOUT the shield. Thus, we build a shield, and eliminate the threat.
Um, can we get a three-year old in here to find the rather gaping hole in this argument?
They can nuke us without the shield.
They can not nuke us with the shield.
Being nuked is undesirable.
Therefore, build the frikin' shield.
Get it now?
so that 7 out of 14 missiles miss Los Angeles.
You're ignoring the fact that no one can saturate more than one city with that many missiles. LA would be a highly defended target, because N. Korea and China can actually reach it. We'd have the missiles in place to defend it from any conceivable threat.
quote:
They can not nuke us with the shield.
OK, maybe a two-year old will find the flaw, now.
Another possible flaw is that it would not protect the US from non-missile terrorist attacks. A group of terrorists could receive a nuclear device in Brazil and secretly transport it up to Mexico. They could sneak across the Arizona border late at night and (given the right vehicles) escape detection by the Border Patrol. The terrorists could then park the nuclear device in a downtown LA parking garage and blow the hell out of Hollywood.
A possible consequence of the defense shield would be the US government becoming cockier in handling situations with foreign governments. "We're protected, you can't do anything to us, so we're gonna do what we want," would be a prevalent attitude regardless of who is President. This could possibly unite our enemies against the US. Another consequence would be the restart of an arms race. Our more technological adept enemies will try to find countermeasures to our defense shield. Likewise, our side will try to find countermeasures to their countermeasures. It would turn into an unending cycle of improvements. However, should our technologically adept enemies decide not to outsmart the defense shield, they may simply decide to overwhelm it. Thus, the answer would be a stockpiling of powerful weapons. If all launched at the same time, the defense shield could be overwhelmed and allow a few missiles to score direct hits.
[Edit: correctly a lot of bad grammar. Must remember to proofread long posts.]
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
I'd just like to say again. This little defense project will not protect against nukes delivered via some creepy guy with a larger than usual suitcase working for Saddam. And it is more likely that it will happen that way than it would via missle. You guys seem to want to ignore that fact.
Former head of the C.I.A, R. James Woolsey has stated that he believes that terrorists with WMDs represent the single most serious threat to U.S. national security.
quote:PianOmega47: Oh, and as for defending ourselves, you DO have people pointing nuclear missiles at your home.
JeffKardde: And how many times has MAD failed?
PianOmega47: It can fail.
JeffKardde: How many times HAS it failed?
PianOmega47: A) How many world dictators are totally insane?
PianOmega47: DArned enter key...
PianOmega47: B) how many countries have nuclear missiles?
JeffKardde: How many world dictators are THAT insane?
PianOmega47: It's only a matter of time until these two overlap.
PianOmega47: You'd be surprised.
PianOmega47: MAD can fail. You deny?
JeffKardde: MAD has not failed. STAR WARS is unproven technology. You deny?
JeffKardde: Speaking of which: http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000732
PianOmega47: SDI is experimental tech, and thus by definition unproven. It is, however, promising, considering that it just worked.
JeffKardde: So this makes, what, two tests is passed ... and two it failed?
PianOmega47: See, the problem with MAD is the "mutual" part. I prefer assured destruction for the other side and NOT ours. How 'bout you?
PianOmega47: No, that makes one test it's passed with flying colors, and none it's failed. This system has never been tested before.
JeffKardde: Well ... MAD isn't really accurate anymore, there being no superpowers left but the US.
PianOmega47: So what's your problem?
JeffKardde: So it's more like, SUICIDE. They hit us with two or maybe three missiles, and they get toasted. Unless you're trying to convince me Saddam-baby has two hundred nukes he's driving around on 18-wheelers to keep hidden.
PianOmega47: OK, so now, someone hits us with two or three nukes, kills tens of millions, and they're toasted. With SDI, someone tries to hit us with two or three nukes, no one dies, and they're toasted. Sounds good to me.
JeffKardde: However, the concept is even more sound now, when you consider that if some crazed dictator did fire off a nuke, he would know that, at most, he'd kill a few million Americans -- and in return, his entire country would be reduced to atomic dust.
PianOmega47: He might not care.
PianOmega47: Dictators are like that.
PianOmega47: Read: stupid.
JeffKardde: And how long until SDI is ready? And you're assuming a conventional nuke launch -- why not smuggle one across the Mexican or Canadian borders?
JeffKardde: Yes, and I'm sure the soldiers who actually fire the missile will be perfectly okay with knowing that they, their families, their homeland, is about to be destroyed.
PianOmega47: You deal with what you can.
PianOmega47: They don't have to know, now do they?
JeffKardde: Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
PianOmega47: It boils down to this:
If you're right, and I'm wrong, and we implement SDI, we waste a bit of money. Something like 10% of the anual federal budget, spread out over several years. And Democrats never minded wasting money before, so that shouldn't bother you at all.
If I'm right, you're wrong, and we DON'T implement SDI, then tens of millions die.
PianOmega47: You assume it ain't broke.
JeffKardde: When did it break?
PianOmega47: There is a hole in our defense. Disagree?
JeffKardde: Very.
PianOmega47: Well, you're an idiot.
PianOmega47: Someone can nuke us. This does not qualify?
JeffKardde: Aren't you the same dude who liked bitching about ad-hominems?
JeffKardde: How many crazy dictators posess both the ability to deliver a nuclear missile by ICBM and the desire to?
PianOmega47: Only when you thought you were actually making a point. I'm just calling you an idiot because it makes me feel better. The truth is where it needs to be.
PianOmega47: Thanks to Bill Clinton, any crazy dictator with a bit of cash can.
JeffKardde: But, what's easier? Building an ICBM and launching it? Or putting a nuke in the back of a pickup truck and driving it across the Mexican border? (Gee, thanks for passing NAFTA, Republican Congress!!!)
JeffKardde: Of course, if they do drive a nuke across the Mexican border, hopefully they'll detonate it in Texas, so no big loss.
PianOmega47: Jeff, you still don't get the point.
JeffKardde: If I'm not getting the point, it's probably because your pitch needs work.
PianOmega47: We can be nuked. We can prevent it with minimal trouble and cost. Why not do it?JeffKardde: 10% of the national budget over the next several years doesn't seem minimal.
PianOmega47: Well, it is.
PianOmega47: 10% of ONE YEAR's budget.
JeffKardde: Hey, if you think that way, fine. Just don't criticize Democratic spending.
PianOmega47: No, no, I'm talking about spending on a legitimate government expenditure: protecting its people. You guys like spending money just 'cause you have it, whether you have any right to spend in on what you do or not, whether it's wasteful or not.
JeffKardde: Frankly, I'd rather see the money spent on education ... but, then, I'm just an idiot liberal.
PianOmega47: The federal government doesn't have the right to do that.
PianOmega47: But then, you're against a tax cut in any form, too...
JeffKardde: Right. So missiles: good, education: bad. Gotcha.
PianOmega47: *L*
JeffKardde: Hell, you guys wanna waste all this money on a defense system that's MORE likely to get us nuked by paranoid powers then on improving education!
PianOmega47: So do you do that on purpose, or are you really that dumb and/or pre-programmed to read your own beliefs about me into everything I say?
PianOmega47: *L*
JeffKardde: That's what you just said, dude.
PianOmega47: No, it's not.
JeffKardde: Missiles = good, education = no-no
PianOmega47: No, it's not.
JeffKardde: Oh, right, I forgot, you're the same dude who thinks the highway systems are un-Constitutional.
PianOmega47: I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.
PianOmega47: Which they are, when federally administered.
JeffKardde: How is missile defense legitimate, and the highways not?
PianOmega47: Missile defense is a military expenditure, and is covered in the constitution. Highways can not be read into the constitution in any way, form, or manner.
JeffKardde: Military expenditure.
PianOmega47: Nope.
JeffKardde: You said it yourself
JeffKardde: Yep. Do you know WHY the highways were built?
PianOmega47: Really?
JeffKardde: Indeed. To facilitate the mobilization of the US Armed Forces and their transport across this great BIG land of ours
PianOmega47: They were built because someone wanted something to spend money on. They CLAIMED that it was because they needed a way to move tanks from place to place, even though interstates are totally unsuited for that.
JeffKardde: Hardly. The Marines drive tanks on I-95 down in N Carolina all the time.
PianOmega47: Try driving one cross-country.
PianOmega47: We use planes for transportation of personel and equipment over any distance.
JeffKardde: But, dude, did we use planes like that back in the '30's? Hardly.
PianOmega47: Then how do you justify continued expenditure?
JeffKardde: Interstate commerce.
JeffKardde: What, you want them to fall into disrepair? It'd shut down the economy!
PianOmega47: Hardly. Regulation of interstate commerce does not lead to facilitating it.PianOmega47: No, I want them under state jurisdiction and funding.
JeffKardde: But they weren't built to facilitate commerce: that was a fortunate hapanstance.
PianOmega47: They weren't built to regulate it, either.
JeffKardde: Most states can't AFFORD to fund them. And for the most part, they ARE under state jurisdication. Do you see Federal agents pulling people over for speeding, or State Troopers?
PianOmega47: Once their military application was eliminated, they should have been sold. Who would have bought them? The individual states, of course.
JeffKardde: Do you see Federal highway contruction crews out repairing them? Or State?
JeffKardde: The individual states CAN'T afford them. They're pretty fucking expensive given repairs, maintenance, et al
PianOmega47: Most states have idiots in charge of their budgets. Mine, for example. And if the federal government lowered taxes, the individual states would have more leeway to fund things.
JeffKardde: Ah, yes, Tennessee. The state you don't live in.
PianOmega47: Did I say that?
JeffKardde: That you don't live in Tennessee?
PianOmega47: But with Democrats in charge, the money saved would just go to some other pork-barrel program. Notice that even with a six trillion dollar surplus, they didn't want a tax cut?
PianOmega47: Huh.
JeffKardde: Huh? Huh to what?
PianOmega47: Just "huh".
JeffKardde: In response too ... ?
PianOmega47: Nothing at all.
JeffKardde: Okaaaaay.
It boils down to one simple fact. Building new nukes is far faster, easier and cheaper than building defenses against them. In the time that the US takes to put up NMD and bring it to reasonable level of effectiveness, China could easily have three times the nukes needed to overwhelm it. Albino pachyderm.
quote:~Reactionary Boy, Republican Hero
I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.
quote:~T_T
For fuck's sake...
----
I say we put a big plastic bubble over the United States. That would work just as well and it might cost just as much.
We really don't need to educate people in...well, you pick out your least favorite 20 states. The children in those states will move to mud huts and we'll give them hoes. They should be able to do something worthwile with a hoe. Wait! We don't GIVE them anything. If we give them a hoe they will weed, but if we teach them how to make a hoe...I think they are still weeding. Sorry kiddies, the Bubble needs you.
Or we can tell North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, New York, Tennessee and Pennsylvania to turn in their highways and land grant universities. Bubble money.
Long live the Bubble. The bubble will stop 30% to 45% of missles launched from Ubitchistan. It works best if the Ubitchistany military coats their missles in butter first. It also works best if the military of Ubitchistan does not use any nuclear tipped Tomahawk type missile or any missles that might not be an ICBM.
Not that that would be a "conceivable threat" that could be not be met by the Bubble.
All hail the Bubble.
Heck, let's just call it what is really is. Call it the Sponge Defense...cause 55% to 60% will still get though. As long as they do what we want them to do. That's somehow better and worth a spending tons and tons of money on. Yup, sound fisical policy that...with the added benefit that I feel reeeeeeally secure now!
Oh, and don't forget the concept of the MIRV, previously quoted in my post. Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, one missle, many warheads.
Here's a strikingly new, unusual, and different approach. We could try and get along with the other inhabitants of our little world. We can try to make the lives population of this here planet better so petty little dictators don't get to come to power in the first place.
And for goodness sakes, someone please tell Reactionary Boy, Republican Hero that he and we (the US) aren't the only people on the planet.
Oh, and for good measure:
quote:
We use planes for transportation of personel and equipment over any distance.
Quick, someone tell the interstate truckers that they don't exist.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Come to think of it, I'm not sure WHAT the Federal Education programs do except employ lots of otherwise useless psychologists and implement programs that don't work...
Re: SDI will not protect against smuggled weapons.
The response to that is: Nothing else will, either, barring ending all entry into the country. This point is MOOT. A system which protects against ONE form of attack remains superior to a system which defends against NOTHING.
Re: They can just build more missiles!
We can just build more (and better) interceptors.
Hoo Boy.........
Okay, the proponents say that it will promote national security by effectively removing the threat with this shield. Fine.
Taking into account Fo2's "Cats and Dogs" statement, this is a purely liberal viewpoint as it changes the status quo, rule everything, and tell everyone else how to live.
But the critics say that it is far more worth it if these threats are removed by word of dialogue, and not by risking world peace with a shield that can promote a nuclear arms race, another Cold War, and possibly another World War.
Taking into account Fo2's "Cats and Dogs" statement, this is purely a conservative viewpoint as it maintains the status quo, and strengthen their quality of life.
quote:
OIL CITY (June 25, 2001)?PENNDOT will complete the last phase of construction for the Grove City Park Bike Trail, scheduled for late July.Crews will complete the final stage of the project to construct the bike trail, which will concentrate on one mile of paving over the concrete base already laid.
Rhino Construction of Lower Burrell, PA has been contracted to complete the work for PENNDOT at a cost of $182,973.60. Most funding is drawn from federal funds, with the remainder to be supplied by local municipalities.
and ...
quote:
OIL CITY (May 29, 2001)?PennDOT has announced the future construction of a bridge on Route 8, Crane Road, in Washington Township, Erie County.Francis J. Palo, Inc. is the contractor on the project, and will complete the work for PennDOT at a cost of $546, 346 using both state and federal funds.
and ...
quote:
Elizabeth S. Voras, PennDOT Deputy Secretary for Aviation and Rail Freight, and U.S. Cong. Timothy Holden presented symbolic oversized checks totaling $818,780 during a 1:30 p.m. ceremony at the airport."Through this partnership, the state Bureau of Aviation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are able to invest in Pennsylvania's airport system," Voras said. "We are committed to ensuring that our 140 public use airports and heliports are prepared to meet the transportation challenges they confront."
Voras said $43,094 comes from the state's Aviation Development Grant Program. The remaining $775,686 is from an FAA block grant to Pennsylvania, administered by PennDOT's Bureau of Aviation. The improvement costs borne by the airport will be $43,094.
and (most damning):
quote:
Construction of the $499,000 intersection improvement project began in the spring of this year. The work included widening U.S. Route 6, new signals at the junction of Routes 6 & 590 and at the CVS Driveway, along with new turning lanes and concrete islands. The project also included new guide rail, resurfacing and pavement markings. The cost including design costs was $680,000. It was paid for with 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. The contractor is American Asphalt Paving Company of Shavertown.
Look *URL removed because it was too long for the UBB to handle, and it was making the page all fubar* for more articles about Federal funding for PENNSYLVANNIA'S ROADS (and airports, and bike paths, and so on).
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
Therefore, you have a grand total of two examples, one of which makes no mention of the proportion of local to federal funds, and one of which was done on a grant, rather than being part of the regular state budget, AND includes a Federal road (That's what "US Route 6" means).
And Pennsylvania has how many hundred thousand miles of roads? (Not counting Interstates [US Route 70, US Route 81, etc.], which are legitimately federally funded)
Non-examples. Should I applaud?
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.
This is an entirely true statement. What's your problem with it?
The Constitution specifically gives the Federal government power to provide for the common defense of the United States (Article 1, Section 8). Nowhere does it, or any of the Amendments, mention education. And since the 10th Amendment clearly relegates all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States, Education is supposed to be a State matter, not a Federal one. This was made especially clear when the state of Kansas made itself a laughingstock a few years back, remember?
(Nevertheless, to keep standards uniform throughout the country, it is helpful to have National guidelines, but not more than that.)
Now, one might say that the Federal government pays for a lot of education through its programs... but it does so by distributing federal tax money through the states. It would be more efficient (and probably cheaper) if this money went directly to the states, through state taxes. (corresponding with the obvious reduction in Federal taxes.)
quote:
Maybe you're just dumb
Your style of debate is sheer genius. Cause I've been found out...it's not like I pulled random states from out of thin air or anything.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Frankly I'm rather glad that I don't live in a United States with your's and Omgea's ideology. That would be a crappy place to live.
Do however keep arguing about the Swiss Cheese missile defense package and tell me that somehow it's sound fisical policy when it's a bunch of Reaganite sycophants who want to mindlessly pursue one of the Gipper's lame brained ideas.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Swiss cheese? Wherever did you get that idea? What, do you think we can build a thousand ICBM's and warheads but not two thousand warhead-killers? Is there any logic to that statement at all?
OR, do you mean because smugglers could maybe still bring in a nuclear warhead under the radar? SURE, but they can do THAT under your No-action plan, as WELL as launching them. Removing PART of the threat is preferable to removing NONE of it.
Can radioactivity be detected through the casing of a nuke? If so, we could install Geiger counters at all airports. Of course, that would only eliminate air transit. Sea transit would have to be taken care of by massively increased coast guard patrols, probably in conjunction with Canada. Since we trust Canada, that just leaves the Mexican land border. We need more security along the border with Mexico anyhow, to deal with illegal immigration, so we can kill two birds with one stone here. How 'bout some new forts in southern Texas, Arizona, and California?
quote:
Now since we've pretty well established that SDI is a good idea
Good lord, he follows the GWB school of thought on unilateralism, too.
How many geo-synchronous satelites does the US have?
How much of an area can they watch, and how much area do we need to be monitoring?
Can they see through cloud cover, rain storms, etcetra?
If not, how are we supposed to track incoming missiles and not confuse them with airliners or whatnot?
What's the range of the defensive missiles? Do we have one battery on each coast, or are we talking about big missile launchers every four miles up and down the coast?
As many as we need, considering that they'd be paid for by the military.
How much of an area can they watch, and how much area do we need to be monitoring?
In theory, we can monitor the entire surface of the globe. We'd need to monitor any country that has, or could possibly have, ICBMs. The oceans near our coasts would be good, too, due to nuclear-armed subs.
Can they see through cloud cover, rain storms, etcetra?
Yup.
What's the range of the defensive missiles?
Depends on how we implement the system, which hasn't been decided yet. Space-based would have theoretically unlimited range, but we might go land or sea, too. Or some combination of the above.
Yeah right.
quote:
Swiss cheese? Wherever did you get that idea? What, do you think we can build a thousand ICBM's and warheads but not two thousand warhead-killers? Is there any logic to that statement at all?OR, do you mean because smugglers could maybe still bring in a nuclear warhead under the radar? SURE, but they can do THAT under your No-action plan, as WELL as launching them. Removing PART of the threat is preferable to removing NONE of it.
Ok, let's use the Ruskies here. They are evil bastards and we don't like them. They are evil enough to launch a first strike because they hate Wisconsin cheese. Now, under the addle brained and very large costing, we can't guarantee the shooting down of all missile defense program, let's say 2 MIRVs out of 10 get in.
Hey, look ma, we shot down 80%. And yet, let's just say that each of those MIRV's carries 10 warheads a piece. Well, hot damn, Los Angeles is gone.
You lame-brained Strategic Dumbass Initiative types think to yourselves, okilly dokily, we done shot down 80-90% of the missiles like that is something to get EXCITED ABOUT!
Wake up and smell the charred bodies.
Put yourself in military shoes for a second. What is the first thing you would do as commanding General of Country A if your long time enemy and reason you built up your nuclear stockpile for in the first place, Country B has...
Here is a list of things that would happen then:
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Further, we'd have the head start. You're talking about countries with massive, working arsenals. That's effectively us, and only us. By the time anyone could build enough missiles to overwhelm our defences, we'd have beefed them up enough to handle the threat. In the process, they'd be destroying their own economy, ala the USSR.
So...
1) Country B builds missile shield.
2) Country A decides it wants the ability to overwhelm said shield, thus building more misslies, and spending more money every year building and maintianing them.
3) Country B knows this, and thus increases their defences, for far less than the cost of A's missiles.
4) Country A either stops the buildup; launches before they can overwhelm the shield, thus commiting suicide; or economically colapses.
Under any circumstances, with good leadership, country B wins.
quote:
...Building a single nuclear warhead costs tens of millions of dollars, and that's only the beginning. It costs tens of millions more simply to keep a single ICBM in working condition, and that's an ongoing expense.
I'm not saying it's not expensive, but where are you pulling those numbers from?
And if you would please, your selective answers aside, respond to this one in relation to your less than 100% effective shield.
SDI is a highly experimental and still unproven technology in the 2000s.
And you're guaranteeing me that defensive capability could be reinforced faster than offensive capability.
I mean, arms races are bad enough. But a race between a new and expensive technology and a commonplace and much less expensive one strikes me as somewhat devoid of intelligence.
But a race between a new and expensive technology and a commonplace and much less expensive one strikes me as somewhat devoid of intelligence.
It would be, but it's not what we're dealing with. We're, hypothetically, dealing with an arms race between an old, expensive tech, and a new, far cheaper tech. Totally different concept.
Jay:
Country A figures out a way to deliver a nuclear payload to a target in Country B without using ICBM technology.
Then we deal with it in some other way. I've already proposed one. This shield is not designed to protect from all nuclear attack, it's designed to protect from ICBMs. Removing part of the threat is preferable to removing none at all.
Bush and Putin are talking to each other as of right now, and I'm sure he'll eventually talk to China. Besides that, China is trading with us, and with the Olympics coming to them, they probably won't ruin their time in the world's spotlight by attacking the US. I thought last year North Korea and South Korea were trying to talk about some peace coming between them. Bush sent Powell to the Middle East to dicuss more ways to cease hostilities.
Who are we building this shield against?
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Yes, THEIR destruction. The point is that ten million of OUR people won't die in the process.
Why can't we just talk to these nations?
Irrational hatreds on their parts, for one. Iran, for example. Then there are nations that don't stand by their agreements. Words aren't always enough, Ace. That's why we have an army in the first place. Let me guess: you were for unilateral disarmament, too?
Is there a country out there that really is set to destroy us?
Are you so naive that you don't think so?
Bush and Putin are talking to each other as of right now, and I'm sure he'll eventually talk to China. Besides that, China is trading with us, and with the Olympics coming to them, they probably won't ruin their time in the world's spotlight by attacking the US. I thought last year North Korea and South Korea were trying to talk about some peace coming between them. Bush sent Powell to the Middle East to dicuss more ways to cease hostilities.
You seem to think that talking is the solution to everything. Bush and Putin are TALKING. He'll TALK to China. N. and S. Korea TALKING about peace. DISCUSS cesation of hostilities. Words can and do fail, and when they do, you have to have something to fall back upon, otherwise you're screwed. Many world leaders don't share your wonderful idea of "Oh, why can't we all just get along?" What do you suggest we do about them?
Is that who the shield is against or is that meant about me?! 
Irrational hatreds on their parts, for one. Iran, for example.
Can they hit us? I though only China and Russia have the capability to threaten us.
Words aren't always enough, Ace. That's why we have an army in the first place. Let me guess: you were for unilateral disarmament, too?
Of course we need a military. I have no objection to having a first rate military at our hands in case we need to defend ourselves. I admire and respect the men and women who go into the military. As for unilateral disarmament, if you mean just US disarmament, then no, I do not support that. If you mean stuff like the entire world, you need to be more specific on what kind of disarmament (the entire military or just nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction, etc.).
Are you so naive that you don't think so?
I'd like to think that I'm not naive.
Well anyway, who is it that has this agenda to destroy us and also have the capability to do it? Did this country that is an actual threat declare their intention to destroy us, or at least say that the United States is their enemy? Didn't Bush tell Putin that Russia is not the enemy of the United States on his trip to Europe a few weeks back? In addition, didn't he even suggest to Putin that Russia could help with this shield as a joint project?
China trades with us, and they have the 2008 Olympics. I doubt they'll do anything to threaten the US (and the major business they get from the US) when they are trying to show off to the world these next years.
You seem to think that talking is the solution to everything.
Of course talking isn't always going to work, but it seems Bush and the rest of the supporters of this shield don't seem to even consider diplomacy an option.
By building a missile shield, we are effectively saying to the world that we now have a bullet-proof vest to their weapons. As stated meany times before by Jeff K, this shield will probably lead to a new arms race and cold war.
Speaking of this shield, once we have it, won't we be able to use its capabilities (satilites, etc.) to actually send missiles to targets other than incoming missiles such as buildings and ships on any part of the world, thus becoming a threat to any nation. I'd assume it would be easier to hit a building than a missile as you could know exactly where it is. Is that the real reason behind this shield?
Actually, if we ask who benifits the most out of this shield, it's the defense contractors, right? Is that another influence to this plan?
Many world leaders don't share your wonderful idea of "Oh, why can't we all just get along?" What do you suggest we do about them?
I understand that, and for any threats to us that we cannot reason with, we will need a military for defense. My question, which wasn't really answered, is simply who are these rogue, enemy nations?
quote:
The liberals...
That was a joke, Ace.
And you seem to think that having the shield eliminates dimplomacy as an option.
By building a missile shield, we are effectively saying to the world that we now have a bullet-proof vest to their weapons. As stated meany times before by Jeff K, this shield will probably lead to a new arms race and cold war.
Non sequitor. Why would having an effective bullet-proof vest lead to a cold war? You don't see people killing cops with armor-piercing rounds, do you?
Well anyway, who is it that has this agenda to destroy us and also have the capability to do it?
Anyone has the capability, as long as they have a wad of cash. They can buy the tech from China, thank you Bill Clinton.
Speaking of this shield, once we have it, won't we be able to use its capabilities (satilites, etc.) to actually send missiles to targets other than incoming missiles such as buildings and ships on any part of the world, thus becoming a threat to any nation.
We can do that now with ICBMs.
Actually, if we ask who benifits the most out of this shield, it's the defense contractors, right?
They benefit monitarily. We all benefit from their work and expertise by the reduced risk of death by nuke. Sounds like a fair trade.
I understand that, and for any threats to us that we cannot reason with, we will need a military for defense.
Thus a missile shield. Thank you.
My question, which wasn't really answered, is simply who are these rogue, enemy nations?
Let's see. Countries that don't like us...
China, N. Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Cuba, right off the top of my head. Give me a bit of time and I'll have more. Or you could just ask Rob. Not that I really NEED more. One's enough.
General 2: Or someone.
Dubya: No problemo boys! Spend as much as you need
Trent Lott: Mister President, I'm very concerned about the possibility that large radioactive lizards may one day rise from the ocean floor and wreak havoc and destruction on this great nation! We need to build an anti-lizard submarine fleet immediiately!
Preferably in my district.
Dubya: Sounds good to me, Trenteroo!
Business person: What if the Earth were bombarded by strange cosmic rays which turned the newly dead into mindless zombies with an insatiable hunger for living flesh?
Why take the risk, sir -- when Lockheed-Martin is ready to begin working on advanced anti-zombie technology today?
Dubya: Go to it guys! Better safe than sorry!
Scientist: Sir, the vast majority of scientists in the world believe that global warming is a real and imminent threat -- and the few who disagre are are almost invariably on the oil industry's payroll! It's imperative that we take action!
Dubya: Oh, for cryin' out loud! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard!
Will somebody please show chicken little here to the door?
And get me and update on the zombie menace pronto!
~~~~~
I just love Tom Tommorow
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
Yes, THEIR destruction. The point is that ten million of OUR people won't die in the process.
I wonder how naive YOU are, since you have failed to consider the consequences a massive nucleair exchange would have on this planet and its environment. Or do you believe your precious little shield will protect you from those as well?
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
quote:
the consequences a massive nucleair exchange would have on this planet and its environment.
Well, NONE, if we shoot down the missiles BEFORE they detonate, silly.
***
There's something that some of you people don't understand about odds.
If you put up a bulletproof vest that stops 80% of bullets, then 20 out of a hundred will get through.
BUT, if you add a second layer that stops 80% of bullets fired at it, then only 4 (might) get through.
With a third layer, that drops to 1, and with a 4th, that drops to none. (assuming that the MAXIMUM effectiveness is 80%, which is a pessimistic estimate.)
Therefore, we only need to have, at MOST, 4 times as many little missile killers as our most-well-armed enemy has warheads. Considerably less, if we develop a method of killing the missiles before they release the MIRV's.
PS, did any of you notice that in combination with the development of SDI, Bush has announced that he intends to UNILATERALLY reduce the US's arsenal (no, I doubt you've heard that.)
In three days, we had found a way to pick the lock. Not necessarily because we wanted to use the computer, but simply because we were affronted at my mother's belief that she could keep us out of aything we wanted to play with. I have spent many, many hours creating ways to do things simply because someone told me I couldn't. I'd like to think that our so called rogue countries probably behave the same way.
There ARE people out there making armor piercing bullets just because cops have bullet proof vests.
If we put up this "sheild", the only thing it's going to do is create a situation in which the countries that hold hostility towards us feel the need to poke holes in it. If they want to nuke us, they are going to find a way. Trust me.
Not to mention the fact that some people tend to forget: if we nuke China, for instance, the aftermath of that nuke is GOING to affect us.
Or how about this. If anyone at all wants to nuke us, and does, then we have to consider it an act of war. Then what happens? Millions of young men get drafted and packed off to Uzbekistan or wherever. So no matter what, innocent people are going to die.
War, Fighting, Weapons, Nukes, and everything else just lead to mass destruction no matter what.
Please do not tempt the other countries of the world by telling them we have a "shield" that prevents us from being Nukable. It WILL spur an arms race. Then we'll be back to the Cold War, the Red Scare, and all those Oh-So wonderful times where we all lived in peace and harmony with our bomb sheltars and hard hats.
*sigh*
Do I know of a single way around anything threatening us? No.
But I know that you don't poke a sleeping tiger with a stick simply because you THINK he can't get you.
[edited because rouge is something you put on your cheeks and rogue is somethig entirely different]
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: Jubilicious ]
FYI, the "Cop Killer" bullet is mythical. To date, no police officer has ever been killed by the bullets decried as 'Cop Killers' through a bulletproof vest (although there have been a couple who were shot in the head by one, the nature of the bullet really doesn't matter in those cases."
*** End Off Topic***
By that logic, the International Community's telling the US that it can't and shouldn't develop a missile defense means that it must and will.
quote:
But I know that you don't poke a sleeping tiger with a stick simply because you THINK he can't get you.
Yes. I've been saying that for years... but those other countries keep poking at us...
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
Well, NONE, if we shoot down the missiles BEFORE they detonate, silly.***
There's something that some of you people don't understand about odds.
If you put up a bulletproof vest that stops 80% of bullets, then 20 out of a hundred will get through.
BUT, if you add a second layer that stops 80% of bullets fired at it, then only 4 (might) get through.
With a third layer, that drops to 1, and with a 4th, that drops to none. (assuming that the MAXIMUM effectiveness is 80%, which is a pessimistic estimate.)
Therefore, we only need to have, at MOST, 4 times as many little missile killers as our most-well-armed enemy has warheads. Considerably less, if we develop a method of killing the missiles before they release the MIRV's.
Bullets are one thing. Nucleair warheads are another. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the defensive system will be able to stop 99.999999999% of all incoming warheads. Which it won't. In fact, there is no way to predict beforehand how effective it would be. Small-scale testresults can simply NOT be used as representative odds.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that some people tend to forget: if we nuke China, for instance, the aftermath of that nuke is GOING to affect us.
...Which was the point I was trying to get across. And I don't just mean the environmental aftermath.
Or did you think dear Double-You wouldn't order any kind of retaliatory (nucleair) strike, after his country had been targetted by [fill in a potential enemy of the U.S.]? He isn't the kind of politician who prefers diplomacy to war.
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
quote:
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the defensive system will be able to stop 99.999999999% of all incoming warheads.
No, my estimates were based on 80%, as I stated. However, TWO 80% effective shields add up to 96%, and FOUR add up to 100%.
Here, let me show you:
10 missiles launched
XXXXXXXXXX
First-wave defense launches 10 killers Assuming that 80% effective rate, 8 impact: 80% incoming missiles destroyed
***X***X**
2 missiles left
XX
2nd-wave defense launches 4 killers, 80% of which (or 3) impact. 3 missile equivalent destroyed.
**
Yields 0 missiles left.
and of course, like most defense systems, we'd likely launch FAR more defensive weapons than there were incoming warheads. That's only using SENSE.
Saying that 'because it can't work 100% of the time, we shouldn't build it' is like saying 'because seat belts only help 90% of the time, you shouldn't wear one.'
quote:
Saying that 'because it can't work 100% of the time, we shouldn't build it' is like saying 'because seat belts only help 90% of the time, you shouldn't wear one.'
Seatbelts always work when you wear them, and always don't when you don't. Of course you can still get killed in an accident - seatbelts help only so much, a frontal collision at 70 mph rather negates their purpose. There are certain parameters that determine their usefulness.
Anti-ICBM measures OTOH are *always* partially effective at best. The issue here is whether or not a leaky and technically flawed shield is worth the multi-(b/tr)illion investment. Wether it is worth a renewed arms race and increased tensions. Wether it is worth a holocaust.
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
That maths is horrible. And wrong. Probability is not a sure thing. That's why it's called probability. If you flip a coin, it's got a 50% chance of landing on a head. That doesn't mean if you flip it 100 times, you'll get heads 50 times. There's a chance, however small, of getting 100 tails. Likewise, with an 80& effectiveness rate, there's still a chance of a missle hitting. The only way you could stop that happening would be with a 100% effectiveness rate. And, given chaos theory and all the things that can go wrong, that's pretty much impossible.
quote:
And, given chaos theory and all the things that can go wrong, that's pretty much impossible.
...That is the one tiny little detail most pro-shielders constantly overlook. It can't be 100% effective, not 90%, not 80% - realistic odds (even in favorable conditions) are much, much worse.
If you have four 80% effective shields, and one missile is launched, here's what can happen:
It hits the first shield. It has a 20% chance of getting through. It just happens to fall within that 20%, and it gets through.
It hits the second shield. Same thing happens.
It hits the third shield. Same result.
It hits the fourth shield. No difference.
It hits a major city and wipes out a shitload of people.
Sure, there may only be a 0.16% chance of its happening, but that's still a chance. Therefore, it is not 100% effective.
The odds of getting a "full house" in a poker hand are 693 to 1 against.
A missile is more likely to get through four 80%-effective shields than you are to get a "full house".
What happens when you assume several waves of several killers each, then?
And does anybody know how many warheads are likely to be launched in an assault? I think you folks are assuming a full-scale assault with everything the Soviets had at the height of the cold war. More likely we're talking about anything between 1 and... well even the Chinese wouldn't use up all their weapons in a first-strike and hold none in reserve, and they don't have that many Long March missiles yet, so let's say... 50.
But you're right that nobody can guarantee 100% probability. However, I reiterate that that point is irrelevant, as it applies to everything under the sun. You can't guarantee that your car won't get crushed by a semi, yet you drive. You can't guarantee that the plane you're on will stay in the air, yet you fly. You can't even guarantee that a kid won't have a traumatic allergic reaction to a vaccination, and die, but you take them to be vaccinated anyway.
[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
You guys really don't have a leg to stand on, here. SDI would work. SDI is a good idea. Why not?
Americans with lots of nuclear weapons who read too many Tom Clancy books = bad. Americans with lots of nuclear weapons who read too many Tom Clancy books and have a defense that means they can nuke everyone else while remaining effectively safe = worse.
SDI brings the threat of war. A cold one, at the very least, but could evolve to a real one.
You saw how Ahmed Ressam nearly snuck through with Nitro-Glycerin in his trunk. Imagine if the US customs officers didn't see anything wrong and decided to let him go on his way. And imagine if he had a Nuclear Bomb instead of Nitro Glycerin.
Pardon me, I'd like to live in a world where my kids don't have to worry about war, or the death that comes with it.
Now Russia has somewhat seen eye-to-eye with Bush and SDI. That is a good start. Reducing Arms Stockpiles in exchange for agreement on the shield. I like.
China, however, will not be so receptive due to past events. Convincing them will be a challenge.
But still, the best option is to remove the threat of a cold war and eventually World War, by NOT putting up the shield.
Well, a bullet-proof vest won't do much good if you get shot BEFORE you put it on.
Jeff:
Well, a bullet-proof vest won't do much good if you get shot BEFORE you put it on.
Thus, you put it on as soon as possible. Though this is quite a good point, it is inconsistant with your earlier positions, so what, exactly, were you trying to say here?
Tahna:
But still, the best option is to remove the threat of a cold war and eventually World War, by NOT putting up the shield.
Illogical. You assume that the ability to defend ourselves would necessarily increase the odds of a cold war beginning. Please state your chain of reasoning that leads you to this conclusion.
SDI brings the threat of war.
Again, how?
You saw how Ahmed Ressam nearly snuck through with Nitro-Glycerin in his trunk. Imagine if the US customs officers didn't see anything wrong and decided to let him go on his way. And imagine if he had a Nuclear Bomb instead of Nitro Glycerin.
How is this relevant to a discussion of SDI?
Pardon me, I'd like to live in a world where my kids don't have to worry about war, or the death that comes with it.
Then move to Mars, or don't have kids, because that's the way the world is. Deal with it. Suggest you move to the United States before you have kids, though, because here they'll have a far greater chance of survival if war DOES come. We'll have a missile shield.
China, however, will not be so receptive due to past events. Convincing them will be a challenge.
Convincing them of what, exactly? Last I checked, US military action and policy was an internal US matter.
Lee:
Now throw ultra-Right Christians wanting to smite the unbelievers with holy fire into the equation.
All six of them?
Because the only people the world worries about being attacked by with nuclear weapons are Americans.
Oh, so the world is composed of idiots that know nothing of the state of the world? Or maybe that's you. Let's see. Iran and Iraq could nuke each other. Pakistan and India. China could nuke Taiwan. Thanks to Clinton, anyone with a bit of cash can now buy the equipment to nuke their enemies. Your statement is false.
How is it inconsistent? Even if we try and put on a non-functioning vest, the very act could panic someone into firing before we got it in place. BOOOM! Bye-bye US of A.
Again, how?
You don't watch the newscasts, do you? University scholars from what I have heard say that such a nuclear defense without the approval of all nations may prompt another cold war. And a cold war can (I won't say will) start a new World War.
quote:
SDI brings the threat of war.
Unfortunately, some people here have too thick a concrete slab in front of their heads to realise this.
quote:
how?
1). Building the shield is a direct violation of several international treaties to which the U.S.A. were a signatory.
2). Hypothetical scenario: some time in the not too-distant future, tensions will escalate to a point where one leader mentally snaps, and makes that fatal, and irrevocable, mistake. "If we can't threaten them when the shield is in place, let's nuke 'm now before they get a chance to put it up."
2). Building the shield upsets the balance of power. The principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, which was always a deterrent to nucleair warfare, effectively goes out the window. And while it may surprise some people here, there are other countries which (should) have a saying in this matter - because they don't want to fight a war of atrition.
3). The U.S.A. are sending this message to the rest of the world: "Go to hell." And that is the kind of agressive posturing many nations do not respond well to.
[Edit] I see Tahna beat me to it... [/Edit]
[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]
Even if we try and put on a non-functioning vest, the very act could panic someone into firing before we got it in place. BOOOM! Bye-bye US of A.
Illogical. Assured destruction would still theoretically apply until the shield was in place. Any attack on us would assure the destruction of the other side, with or without the shield. The only difference is the number of our people killed in the process.
Tahna:
You don't watch the newscasts, do you? University scholars from what I have heard say that such a nuclear defense without the approval of all nations may prompt another cold war.
Oh, no, the all-knowing university scholars said so. My entire argument has just collapsed. Woe is me.
TEL:
Building the shield is a direct violation of several international treaties to which the U.S.A. were a signatory.
Treaties which have built-in escape clauses. They get reviewed every so often, and can be ditched if deemed necessary.
Hypothetical scenario: some time in the not too-distant future, tensions will escalate to a point where one leader mentally snaps, and makes that fatal, and irrevocable, mistake. "If we can't threaten them when the shield is in place, let's nuke 'm now before they get a chance to put it up."
The scenario of a leader that snaps at a random (read: not related to the shield) time is one we're trying to defend against. Thus the shield. Thank you.
Building the shield upsets the balance of power.
With whom?
The principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, which was always a deterrent to nucleair warfare, effectively goes out the window.
Perfect. The "mutual" part has always bugged me.
And I would point out that MAD only applies between two superpowers with massive arsenals. There's only one of those. No one can destroy this country with nuclear assault. China can hurt us, and so can Russia, but that's about it. Neither has the capacity for a massive exchange any more.
Let me get this through to you: THERE IS NO COLD WAR. It ended when Reagan forced the colapse of the Soviet Union. The threat right now is some two-bit dictator that (thank you, Bill) can now buy the tech any time he wants. MAD is irrelevant. The balance of power is nonexistent. Without the shield, a loon can kill ten million people, and have his country nuked. With it, that can't happen. Sounds good to me.
The U.S.A. are sending this message to the rest of the world: "Go to hell."
They're trying to stick their nose in our internal affairs? Then that's exactly what they can do.
Funny...I remember Omega using this as his definition of a rogue nation: A country that does not honor agreed international treaties and laws.
They're trying to stick their nose in our internal affairs? Then that's exactly what they can do.
That's probably what your "rogue nations" are thinking abou the United States. If you really mean that, why do you care about countries like China, Cuba, etc. and their internal affairs?
Just something to think about...
If a law has to be renewed every so often by design, and is not renewed, it is no longer law. That's exactly what we're talking about here.
If you really mean that, why do you care about countries like China, Cuba, etc. and their internal affairs?
Massive violations of human rights are totally different from internal defense policy. You're loosing perspective.
quote:
Building the shield is a direct violation of several international treaties to which the U.S.A. were a signatory.
This is, and will continue to be, a falsehood, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The ABM Treaty ceased to be a treaty the instant the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the ONLY other signatory) ceased to exist. None of the successor nations has, or has tried to, renegotiate or recreate the treaty. It is null and void.
There are NO other 'international treaties' that are relevant.
quote:
Missile Defense System Won't Work
by David Wright and Theodore Postol
The United States is on the verge of deploying a national missile defense system intended to shoot down long-range missiles. The Clinton administration is scheduled to decide this fall whether to give the green light to a system that is expected to cost more than $60 billion, sour relations with Russia and China, and block deep cuts in nuclear arsenals.But the real scandal is that the defense being developed won't work - and few in Washington seem to know or care.
The chief difficulty in trying to develop missile defenses is not getting vast systems of complex hardware to work as intended - although that is a daunting task. The key problem is that the defense has to work against an enemy who is trying to foil the system. what's worse, the attacker can do so with technology much simpler than the technology needed for the defense system. This inherent asymmetry means the attacker has the advantage despite the technological edge the United States has over a potential attacker such as North Korea.
We recently completed, along with nine other scientists, a yearlong study that examined in detail what countermeasures an emerging missile state could take to defeat the missile defense system the United States is planning. That study shows that effective countermeasures require technology much less sophisticated than is needed to build a long-range missile in the first place - technology that would be available to the potential attacker. This kind of analysis is possible since the United States has already selected the interceptor and sensor technologies its defense system would use. We assessed the full missile defense system the United States is planning - not just the first phase planned for 2005 - and assumed only that it is constrained by the laws of physics.
We examined three countermeasures in detail, each of which would defeat the planned US defense.
A country that decided to deliver biological weapons by ballistic missile could divide the lethal agent into 100 or more small bombs, known as ''bomblets,'' as a way of dispersing the agent over the target. This would also overwhelm the defense, which couldn't shoot at so many warheads.
The Rumsfeld panel, a high-level commission convened by Congress in 1998 to assess the ballistic missile threat to the United States, noted that potential attackers could build such bomblets. We show this in detail.
An attacker launching missiles with nuclear weapons would have other options. It could disguise the warhead by enclosing it in an aluminum-coated Mylar balloon and releasing it with a large number of empty balloons. None of the missile defense sensors could tell which balloon held the warhead, and again the defense could not shoot at all of them.
Alternately, we showed that the warhead could be enclosed in a thin shroud cooled with liquid nitrogen - a common laboratory material - so it would be invisible to the heat-seeking interceptors the defense will use.
These are only three of many possible countermeasures. And none of these ideas is new; most are as old as ballistic missiles themselves.
How is it possible that this problem is being ignored? The Pentagon, saying it must walk before it can run, has divided the missile defense problem into two parts: getting the system to work against missiles without realistic countermeasures and then hoping to get it to work against missiles with countermeasures. Few doubt the first step could eventually be done, but such ''walking'' would be useless against an actual attack by North Korea or any other country.
The second step - getting the defense to work against countermeasures - is the one that matters. And our study showed in detail that the planned defense won't be able to do this.
Unfortunately, the debate in Washington revolves around only the first step. The Pentagon plans to determine the ''technological readiness'' of the system this summer after three tests that lack realistic countermeasures. And President Clinton's decision whether to deploy will be based on that assessment. The deployment decision is simply being made on the wrong criteria.
This situation is similar to a group of people deciding to build a bridge to the moon. Instead of assessing the feasibility of the full project before moving forward, they decide to start building the onramps, since that's the part they know how to do.
The reality is that any country that is capable of building a long-range missile and has the motivation to launch it against the United States would also have the capability and motivation to build effective countermeasures to the planned defense. To assume otherwise is to base defense planning on wishful thinking.***
David Wright is a researcher at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the MIT Security Program. Theodore Postol is professor of science, technology, and national security at MIT. Both are physicists.
� Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Apparently, there must be SOME scientists, ie: the ones who proposed it and the ones who work on it, who believe it can work.
quote:
Let me get this through to you: THERE IS NO COLD WAR.
No, there is no Cold War. But as many people have tryed to point out to you ad nauseam, SDI is likely to start a new - not so Cold - one.
quote:
Eleven scientists does not a professional consensus make, even if they DO work at MIT.
What, in your book, DOES make a "professional consensus" then? If it's not eleven top-level MIT scientists... Are you even willing to accept the system has more holes in it that a Swiss cheese? Or do you simply dismiss these findings as fiction?
quote:
Apparently, there must be SOME scientists, ie: the ones who proposed it and the ones who work on it, who believe it can work.
SDI wasn't proposed by scientists, but by a president with illusions of grandure. And of course these people believe it will work, because they're laid off if they don't. How objective do you think they are?
Just curious though: exactly HOW MANY scientists are working on the project?
quote:
The reality is that any country that is capable of building a long-range missile and has the motivation to launch it against the United States would also have the capability and motivation to build effective countermeasures to the planned defense.
In other words: why bother?
By the way: your response to all points mentioned in JC's article was brilliant. Fantastic argumentation.
"Well, a bullet-proof vest won't do much good if you get shot BEFORE you put it on."
"Thus, you put it on as soon as possible."
So, Omega, I take it you wear a bullet-proof vest when ever you leave the house, just in case...
quote:
Last I checked, Germany, Russia, and Taiwan constituted no small part of Eurasia...
Oh that's good. Russia 150 million. Germany 82 million. Taiwan 20 million.
250 million approx.
Population of Eurasia: About 4.5 billion.
Yeah, they are a HUGE part Ommey. About what, 6%? I guess their voices count for more than everyone elses.
You git.
Daryus just said that Russia, Germany, and Taiwan account for about 6% of Eurasia's population. Did you not read that? It was pretty clear to my eyes.
Let's try and wade through this stupid point by stupid point.
I may be mistaken, but there were a whole smatter of declarations and such at around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union that granted Russia succession status to the USSR internationally. It's why, among other reasons, the USSR's permanent seat on the Security Council didn't just vanish but instead was rechartered to Russia.
Certainly if the ABM treaty no longer applies, then I guess the atmospheric test ban and the non-proliferation treaties are non-binding, too, considering that their other major signatory is now gone, too. I guess Canada will now be legally allowed to start doing surface nuclear tests 100 yards from the American border in Southern Saskatchewan. Directly upwind from Minneapolis and Chicago, if possible. But hey, it's our internal affairs, huh Omega?
Take a history lesson, boy. Reagan started a second arms race after Carter and Ford and Nixon did an admirable job with SALT I and II (and the failure of II was, *gasp* not the American's fault.) Instead, Reagan went all fucked-in-the-head with Star Wars 1 and neutron bombs and low-range tactical nukes and pissed the living daylights out of the Russians. START was a watered-down arms reduction treaty stuck ten years in the past. If Gobachev wasn't as reasonable as he was all the advances made in the previous ten years might have gone to hell in a handbasket. If you want a Republican to praise for winning the Cold War, then praise Bush-the-smarter, who actually dealt with the Soviet Union respectfully and patiently rather than treating it as an "evil empire." What brought the Soviet Union down was a sluggish economy rife with corruption and ineficiency, the human and financial costs of war in Afghanistan, Glasnost and Perestroika running-out-of-control and, believe it or not, Gorbachev's poorly-recieved campaign against alcoholism. (That was a truly fascinating history course.) Reagan might have forced the Soviet Union to spend on defense to the point of economic detriment, but I'd hardly consider that an intentional plan of his nor a preferable course of action when it comes to dealing with a big angry bear.
A conference of hundreds of physicists and political analysts from around the world met in Vancouver about 12 months ago and released a joint conclusion that Missile Defense was far more trouble than it was worth. Clearly these MIT people aren't rogue thinkers surrounded by a sea of brilliant scientists who all know that a missile shield is a smart idea.
That would be news to me. The EU has announced its opposition, and NATO has also refused to endorse the system. Germany is a prominent member of both and I heard nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Sorry, it took me a while to think of this..."Well, a bullet-proof vest won't do much good if you get shot BEFORE you put it on."
"Thus, you put it on as soon as possible."
So, Omega, I take it you wear a bullet-proof vest when ever you leave the house, just in case...
Yep. Only to get shot in the head for his troubles.
Rob: The MIT scientists may ont constitute a consensus against Star Wars, but the scientists working on it do not constitute a consensus for it, either.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Because the only people the world worries about being attacked by with nuclear weapons are Americans.Oh, so the world is composed of idiots that know nothing of the state of the world? Or maybe that's you. Let's see. Iran and Iraq could nuke each other. Pakistan and India. China could nuke Taiwan. Thanks to Clinton, anyone with a bit of cash can now buy the equipment to nuke their enemies. Your statement is false.
I'm going to have to stop making those statement things, obviously. We're talking Inter-Continental nuclear warfare, remember? The kind that uses Inter-Continental Ballistic Weapons. The weapons that SDI proposes to counter. The weapons that Iran, Iraq, India and Pakistan don't have. And as you say, what they do have they'll be using on each other anyway.
America's best deterrent is their existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Someone does launch a missile, they see where it comes from and launch one (or more) back. It's too risky. All the nations that'd like to nuke the US would far sooner just smuggle a backpack nuke in instead. Then you'd have no idea where it came from. And no, Jack Ryan won't be around to figure it out.
I continue to stand by my main argument.
quote:
Americans with lots of nuclear weapons who read too many Tom Clancy books = bad. Americans with lots of nuclear weapons who read too many Tom Clancy books and have a defense that means they can nuke everyone else while remaining effectively safe = worse.
Argument #2: The single nuke countries are a threat to the US, (and everybody else) because of their (supposed) ability to smuggle in a nuke. Okay, that's true enough.
You're right. We should nuke THEM first.
Pack my bags, I'm going to Tehran!
Just as an aside, I've heard that "Star Wars" (man, didn't they come up with a disparaging doublespeak name for that program fast?) was originally conceptualized by certain hard-SF writers.
Why do we put anti-missile countermeasures on our aircraft carriers, and around our ground troops (remember the Patriot) if they don't work? Or is it more important to protect our military than our civilians?
I mean, if anti-missile missiles are useless, why did Israel just buy a boatload of them from us?
[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
Why do we put anti-missile countermeasures on our aircraft carriers, and around our ground troops (remember the Patriot) if they don't work? Or is it more important to protect our military than our civilians?
Yes, those Patriots sure provided *excellent* defense against Saddam's SCUDS during the Gulf War. Technology from the fifties that was barely even touched by the supposedly vastly superior Patriots. Thanks for proving my point.
An ICBM is not a Tomahawk.
See the Hawks chase paper dragons again and again.
Marvel to the copyright postings of Sol System.
Watch as AIDS and hunger ravage the world while pupet and Dufas In Chief, Georgie "Yes Mr. Cheney" Bush kowtows to the American military industrial complex spends billions and billions of dollars on a useless shield!
And as always, keep in mind that it could be a beautiful world to live in.
Watch Jay ignore the fact that the US just increased its contribution to the global fight against AIDS by tens of millions of dollars!
See environmentalists insist that we bankrupt ourselves on a problem that 10 out of 11 scientists say we don't have or can't solve!
Laugh as globalist negotiators sign on to a treaty that their governments won't ratify!
Cheer as Bush approval ratings outpace Clinton's for the same time in office! (58% as opposed to Clinton's 45% at this time 8 years ago)
Snicker as several world leaders show how hypocritical they are by one moment decrying the missile shield and it's 'uselessness' and the next demanding that the US share the technology for building it, and/or its coverage!
If Bush can get all the major world leaders to agree on this, with some level of sacrifice on his part, then the threat of cold war is reduced. On this basis, I will applaud Bush for coming to terms with Russian President Putin for this breakthrough.
As for monetary expenditure, heck it's not MY money, so 
.
One wonders why 1o2 must even bother bringing up Bush's approval rating at all. Maybe he's ticked because Clinton's rating is still higher then Bush's (and the dude's been out of office for six months!)
quote:
...tens of millions of dollars!
Oh my, that's next to nothing and doing next to nothing.
And a big zero on originality.
[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Whatthefuck? Been visiting the Omegan Institute of Inventa-stats or something?
if 1400 scientists (all they could find to sign the Kyoto petition) say yes, but 18,000+ say NO (see the link below) That's around 10 out of 11.
As they say at the card tables, "read 'em and weep."