quote:

---

Now since we've pretty well established that SDI is a good idea

---

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?

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?

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...

• Kept their nuclear stockpile and along with it a first strike capability.
• Built a shield that wasn't 100% effective

Here is a list of things that would happen then:

• Country A would build a hell of a lot more missiles just to be sure that a number gets through the less than 100% shield.
• Coutry B builds both more missiles, to respond to Country A's buildup, and builds a whole lot of anti-missile missles.
• Country A figures out a way to deliver a nuclear payload to a target in Country B without using ICBM technology.
• Country B now has a very expensive and outdated system that did nothing but ratchet up nuclear stockpiles and bring back Cold War tensions.
• We are back to square one. If Country A launches on Country B, then Country B launches on Country A and the whole thing is thrown into a cocked hat. In a word, MAD.
  

[ 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.

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.

• Country A figures out a way to deliver a nuclear payload to a target in Country B without using ICBM technology.

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.

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.

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.

[ 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.

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?

quote:

---

The liberals...

---