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...

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.

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.

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 ]

quote:

---

And, given chaos theory and all the things that can go wrong, that's pretty much impossible.

---

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.

The odds of getting a "full house" in a poker hand are 693 to 1 against.