posted
Pennsylvania already has a Republican governor.
However, we have Democratic senators and representatives we could do without... Hmm.... How old do you have to be to run for Congress?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
I believe the constitution says you have to be 24 minimum to run for the House of Representations and 36 minimum to run for the Senate and President.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
If it ever comes to a massive exchange of ICBMs, your precious and oh-so hyped-defense system will be overwhelmed (i.e. saturated) in minutes, meaning that most warheads can and will make it through untouched - enough, in any case, to level the major cities and industrial/military complexes.
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?
posted
meaning that most warheads can and will make it through untouched
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 ]
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
If China and Russia are not much of a threat, then why do we need W's defense system? 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?
posted
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.
Guarantee me that por favor.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
If China and Russia are not much of a threat, then why do we need W's defense system?
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
So, just so I got this again...you pro-missile types are going to tell me that you are willing to piss off the rest of the world (wait, we don't care about them anyway), start a new arms race, back out of treaties so that 7 out of 14 missiles miss Los Angeles.
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.
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 ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
I'm not a two-year-old, but I'll take a stab. The missile defense shield, if it should ever go fully online, would only defend against missiles launched from outside the United States. If a missile were launched from inside the United States at a US target, the shield would be ineffective. The satellites monitoring missile launches are only scanning foreign countries. It would take a longer amount of time to attain a positive fix on the location and trajectory of a missile launched domestically. Added to that is the likelihood that the time needed to readjust, track, and target the bogey would be longer than the amount of time it would take for a domestically-launched missile to strike a domestic target.
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.]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
