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 ]

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.

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.

Again, how?

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."

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?

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?

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.