German backing for US anti-missile shield

[Maximus Zeebra]

EUobserver.com


This naturally means that most of Europe will support your missile shield in Poland and Czeck Republic.

Maybe its just time to start making more weapons instead of less. War on earth!

 

[Australianlibertarian]

EUobserver.com


This naturally means that most of Europe will support your missile shield in Poland and Czeck Republic.

Maybe its just time to start making more weapons instead of less. War on earth!

If you understand game theory you will understand that your enemy is less likely to attack you, if he or she is unsure of what kind or response your reply will be to their attack. Secondly, if the response would cause disproportionate carnage to the attacker or inhibit a potential attack, the agressor is less likely to attack.

You don't get it do you? Western Europe remained free because the U.S were willing to place very large forces in Europe as a deterent. Let me remind you that Marxist ideology states that the revolution must expand to all workers of the globe. The only reason that the Red Army and Warsaw forces did not attack Western Europe, was because the Soviets knew they would actually meet millitary resistance. If Europe had gone for the pacifist model which you seem to support, it seems highly likely that you favourite little body, the EU would never exist. Most likely substituted by the Supreme Soviet Council of Europe.

Millitary capability that can blunt a potential nuclear attack is a worthwhile investment. End of.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

The rules of the *BN* forum require at least four sentences from the OP author on why this story merits attention. Please observe the ruleset in the future.

*Breaking News* Rules and Guidelines
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/19542-please-read-breaking-news-rules-guidelines.html

 

[rathi]

These missile shields don't even really work. Why the hell are we deploying them? We are ******* off Russia for no good reason.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

If you understand game theory you will understand that your enemy is less likely to attack you, if he or she is unsure of what kind or response your reply will be to their attack. Secondly, if the response would cause disproportionate carnage to the attacker or inhibit a potential attack, the agressor is less likely to attack.

Russia has already stated they will send jets in to bomb any US installation of a missile shield in eastern Europe.

You don't get it do you? Western Europe remained free because the U.S were willing to place very large forces in Europe as a deterent.

:2funny:

Yea of course. But the US is repsonsible for everything good on this planet, right? The Iraq war is neccessary and the US have the greatest military in the world..
No freedom in Europe without the US, especially since the combined European forces are 2 million men with a 200 billion $ budget behind them.. But of course, this doesnt matter, the US shall have all the credit. O holy US, you are god, God bless the best country in the world with the best military. Lets kill some ******s and kick some *** and shoot some muslims, yey. :usflag2:

Let me remind you that Marxist ideology states that the revolution must expand to all workers of the globe. The only reason that the Red Army and Warsaw forces did not attack Western Europe, was because the Soviets knew they would actually meet millitary resistance. If Europe had gone for the pacifist model which you seem to support, it seems highly likely that you favourite little body, the EU would never exist. Most likely substituted by the Supreme Soviet Council of Europe.

Millitary capability that can blunt a potential nuclear attack is a worthwhile investment. End of.

Yeah, lets force everyone around the planet to accept the SUPERIOR US ideals. Lets kill a bunch of people to make this happen and just hope that everyone will go along.

Besides, the missile defence system is said to have the effects of Tchaernobyl. Imagine all that lovely plutonium rain.. Wonderful.

 

[RightinNYC]

Russia has already stated they will send jets in to bomb any US installation of a missile shield in eastern Europe.

Source?

Besides, the missile defence system is said to have the effects of Tchaernobyl. Imagine all that lovely plutonium rain.. Wonderful.

Source?


Honestly, you should stop making such ridiculous claims unless you can back them up.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Source?



Source?


Honestly, you should stop making such ridiculous claims unless you can back them up.

Seriously? You never heard that Russia sais they would bomb such installations? There are plenty of sources, even the main link in this thread will tell you that about Russia. They have threatened with everything from jet strikes to rocket strikes.

As for blowing up a nuclear bomb in the air, what do you imagine happen with the plutonium unless its actually in some kind of reinforced completely secured box that will not be broken by a bombing.
Where do you figure that PLUTONIUM radiactive material will go? just magically vanish?

 

[RightinNYC]

Seriously? You never heard that Russia sais they would bomb such installations? There are plenty of sources, even the main link in this thread will tell you that about Russia. They have threatened with everything from jet strikes to rocket strikes.

The closest it comes is one general being quoted as saying that Russia has the capability to do so, and then an unexplained paraphrase that says they should "actively" act against the system. That's far from an official Russian stance of saying that they will literally go to war over this.

As for blowing up a nuclear bomb in the air, what do you imagine happen with the plutonium unless its actually in some kind of reinforced completely secured box that will not be broken by a bombing.
Where do you figure that PLUTONIUM radiactive material will go? just magically vanish?

Do you understand how nuclear bombs work? If you did, you would obviously understand that destroying a missile before fission can occur is infinitely better than letting it go off. What would you prefer - the possibility of low level radiation leakage in a contained area or the loss of a 2 million+ city?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The closest it comes is one general being quoted as saying that Russia has the capability to do so, and then an unexplained paraphrase that says they should "actively" act against the system. That's far from an official Russian stance of saying that they will literally go to war over this.



Do you understand how nuclear bombs work? If you did, you would obviously understand that destroying a missile before fission can occur is infinitely better than letting it go off. What would you prefer - the possibility of low level radiation leakage in a contained area or the loss of a 2 million+ city?

Ok, I will find you links in the next post, Russian generals and army leaders have said these things, not Putin as far as I know. First I just wanted to ask you..

Theoretical situation..
You have a nuclear missile shield in New york, some submarine of the coast has fired a big nuke headed for for philadelphia. The bomb is hit by the missile shield just outside NY city, the bomb is disarmed, but of course exploded, its now gone. The problem is that the rediactive material is very hard to get rid of, it remains almost regardless of xhat you do. So this now has to go somewhere. It spreads around NY city. The problem is that it takes thousands o years before it will be gone. Many people will die from it if not evacuated, and all NY have to be demolised and rebuilt when they have removed the plutonium pioisoning now effectivbly spread across the NY state.

Now, you should know that Europe is about 5 times as densly populated as the US, and you will undererstand that the impact of something like this and a nuclear bomb hitting a city is alost the same. thus the shield is inneffective. Lots of people will die and the whole area must be evacuated, it will take thousands of years before anyone or thing can live there again.


Personally if I was a terrorist and had access to large amounts of high grade plutonium, not only would it be easier to spread it across NY by airplane, but it would do far more damage than a nuclear bomb in a smaller city like philadelphia for example.

 

[RightinNYC]

Theoretical situation..
You have a nuclear missile shield in New york, some submarine of the coast has fired a big nuke headed for for philadelphia. The bomb is hit by the missile shield just outside NY city, the bomb is disarmed, but of course exploded, its now gone. The problem is that the rediactive material is very hard to get rid of, it remains almost regardless of xhat you do. So this now has to go somewhere. It spreads around NY city. The problem is that it takes thousands o years before it will be gone. Many people will die from it if not evacuated, and all NY have to be demolised and rebuilt when they have removed the plutonium pioisoning now effectivbly spread across the NY state.

Now, you should know that Europe is about 5 times as densly populated as the US, and you will undererstand that the impact of something like this and a nuclear bomb hitting a city is alost the same. thus the shield is inneffective. Lots of people will die and the whole area must be evacuated, it will take thousands of years before anyone or thing can live there again.

Again, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how nuclear bombs work. This isn't at all what happens, in any way shape or form. The fallout from an unfissioned nuclear bomb is likely nowhere near enough to warrant the evacuation of a neighborhood in queens, much less the entire city or state for thousands of years like you claim.

The difference between an bomb being successfully dropped on a city and being exploded pre-fission is several orders of magnitude.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Again, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how nuclear bombs work. This isn't at all what happens, in any way shape or form. The fallout from an unfissioned nuclear bomb is likely nowhere near enough to warrant the evacuation of a neighborhood in queens, much less the entire city or state for thousands of years like you claim.

The difference between an bomb being successfully dropped on a city and being exploded pre-fission is several orders of magnitude.

Ok, I trust you then; The radioactive lmaterial will just lmagically vanish. Lets send anuke towards NY and test your theory out. They should do tests in NY, set up a shield and then send real bombs with real plutonium in towarss NY and explode them with the shield. You say thats not dangerous, so go ahead.

Plutonium will rain for says. A few drops of plutonium spead by the wind is enough to kill tens of thousands of people and contaminate a small area for centuries.

 

[rathi]

Maximus, most bombs likely to be shot at us would not be made of plutonium and even if they were, its not terrible dangerous. Search for "toxicity and health results" on this link.

Plutonium

However, this discussion is moot anyways, because the system does not even work in the first place!!

 

[505]

Ok, I trust you then; The radioactive lmaterial will just lmagically vanish.

It doesn't vanish, but that doesn't matter. These bombs can survive plane crashes, they can sit there and burn for hours and they will not "go nuclear". In order to get the effects that you are talking about, as NY already stated, FISSION MUST OCCUR. If the bomb does not reach it's target, and it is not ACTUALLY set off (not including being interecepted by another missle), there will be literally no radiation.

Lets send anuke towards NY and test your theory out. They should do tests in NY, set up a shield and then send real bombs with real plutonium in towarss NY and explode them with the shield. You say thats not dangerous, so go ahead.

The danger of that wouldn't be from the tiny amount of plutonium being spread, it would be from the slight chance that the interception failed. Ridiculous statement there.

Plutonium will rain for says. A few drops of plutonium spead by the wind is enough to kill tens of thousands of people and contaminate a small area for centuries.

LOL! Man, you can basically hold the stuff in your bare hands if it hasn't been properly detonated. I suggest a quick trip to howstuffworks.com for you.

 

[505]

However, this discussion is moot anyways, because the system does not even work in the first place!!

How do you draw that conclusion?

 

[Synch]

I'm not sure why Russia would grown apprehensive over a few anti-missile defense launchers, I'm sure they're cognizant of the fact that such scant defense is no where near capable of stopping even a small fraction of their nuclear arsenal.

They know that we can't be too candid about the real reason for these installations.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ok, I trust you then; The radioactive lmaterial will just lmagically vanish. Lets send anuke towards NY and test your theory out. They should do tests in NY, set up a shield and then send real bombs with real plutonium in towarss NY and explode them with the shield. You say thats not dangerous, so go ahead.

Plutonium will rain for says. A few drops of plutonium spead by the wind is enough to kill tens of thousands of people and contaminate a small area for centuries.

Dude, you are so far off here it's absurd.

1) It wouldn't be plutonium, it would be uranium.
2) I can't express this enough, but if it doesnt undergo fission, it doesn't have even the tiniest fraction of the impact.

Nuclear weapons are relatively inefficient in their use of fissionable material; usually only 2%-40% of the fissionable material undergoes fission and much of the uranium and plutonium is dispersed by the explosion without undergoing fission. Such unfissioned nuclear material decays by the emission of alpha particles and is of relatively minor importance.

Your doomsday predictions are ridiculous. Concede that you're wrong on this point and move on.

 

[Tashah]

Ok, I trust you then; The radioactive lmaterial will just lmagically vanish.

Nothing magically vanishes. However, you are trying to compare apples and oranges here... a nuclear weapon with intrinsic potential, and a detonated nuclear weapon where this potential has been converted to expended energy. They are not comparatively the same event. You clearly do not understand the concepts of stable potential and realized potential.

Plutonium will rain for says. A few drops of plutonium spead by the wind is enough to kill tens of thousands of people and contaminate a small area for centuries.

What scenario are you talking about here? A Chernobyl-like disaster?

Please understand that destroying a nuclear ICBM with an interceptor missile could not initiate nuclear fission. Nuclear warheads are extremely difficult to fabricate for a simple reason... precise timing is required and all components must function flawlessly for nuclear fission to transpire. In addition, most advanced nuclear warheads have numerous built-in safeguards such as atmospheric pressure sensors, density sensors, magnetic sensors etc. This is to ensure that detonation cannot occur unless all safeguard parameters have been satisified.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm not sure why Russia would grown apprehensive over a few anti-missile defense launchers, I'm sure they're cognizant of the fact that such scant defense is no where near capable of stopping even a small fraction of their nuclear arsenal.

They know that we can't be too candid about the real reason for these installations.

I do understand why they're getting antsy, its because they don't want to be left out of western alliances anymore. I completely agree with the russian lawmakers who want to bring them into the program too. There's no need to antagonize a powerful nation for little gain.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

It doesn't vanish, but that doesn't matter. These bombs can survive plane crashes, they can sit there and burn for hours and they will not "go nuclear". In order to get the effects that you are talking about, as NY already stated, FISSION MUST OCCUR. If the bomb does not reach it's target, and it is not ACTUALLY set off (not including being interecepted by another missle), there will be literally no radiation.




The danger of that wouldn't be from the tiny amount of plutonium being spread, it would be from the slight chance that the interception failed. Ridiculous statement there.



LOL! Man, you can basically hold the stuff in your bare hands if it hasn't been properly detonated. I suggest a quick trip to howstuffworks.com for you.

yeah, and you know what a dirty bomb is???

So you believe that plutonium spreading around will cause absolutely no effect, thats just great. Do you know the effect of people breathing plutonium? getting it in their lungs as itfalls from the skies? Touching it? Living with plutonium in the streets?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Nothing magically vanishes. However, you are trying to compare apples and oranges here... a nuclear weapon with intrinsic potential, and a detonated nuclear weapon where this potential has been converted to expended energy. They are not comparatively the same event. You clearly do not understand the concepts of stable potential and realized potential.


What scenario are you talking about here? A Chernobyl-like disaster?

Please understand that destroying a nuclear ICBM with an interceptor missile could not initiate nuclear fission. Nuclear warheads are extremely difficult to fabricate for a simple reason... precise timing is required and all components must function flawlessly for nuclear fission to transpire. In addition, most advanced nuclear warheads have numerous built-in safeguards such as atmospheric pressure sensors, density sensors, magnetic sensors etc. This is to ensure that detonation cannot occur unless all safeguard parameters have been satisified.

You guys simply dont understand what i am talking about, I am not talking about a ******* explotion at all, not talking about fusion or fission. I am talking about raw plutonium in a tank inside the bomb that is destroyed and how that will rain down on whatever is below.

 

[Tashah]

You guys simply dont understand what i am talking about, I am not talking about a ******* explotion at all, not talking about fusion or fission. I am talking about raw plutonium in a tank inside the bomb that is destroyed and how that will rain down on whatever is below.

And you don't understand that an explosion is necessary to granulize the fissile material. Without this caveat, it remains a single solitary lump of radioactive material.

First you were talking about an intercepted ICBM. Next you switched to a suitcase 'dirty bomb'. Which is it? Be clear as to what exactly you are talking about and the extant conditions.

Jeesh :roll:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

And you don't understand that an explosion is necessary to granulize the fissile material. Without this caveat, it remains a single solitary lump of radioactive material.

First you were talking about an intercepted ICBM. Next you switched to a suitcase 'dirty bomb'. Which is it? Be clear as to what exactly you are talking about and the extant conditions.

Jeesh :roll:

So that material just vanish in mid air then? It doesnt explode with the bomb itself? Its not divided up as the rocket hit the nuclear bomb.

You are saying that the whole shell of the nuclear bomb is destroyed and that a lump of nuclear material just vanish in the skies or just magically land in a collector on the ground in one piece?

 

[rathi]

How do you draw that conclusion?

When used during the gulf war, the effectiveness of the system vs Iraqi Scuds was very low. ICBMs are far faster than Scuds and much harder to hit.

You are saying that the whole shell of the nuclear bomb is destroyed and that a lump of nuclear material just vanish in the skies or just magically land in a collector on the ground in one piece?

The second option. Dropping a large amount of Uranium is not going to scatter it into a bunch of dangerous particles. It will raise radiation levels somewhat, but not enough to cause serious damage.

 

[Tashah]

So that material just vanish in mid air then? It doesnt explode with the bomb itself? Its not divided up as the rocket hit the nuclear bomb.

Do you have a comprehension problem? Listen to me and listen well. The fissile material in any nuclear device would have to be granulized to initiate the specific radioactive fallout effects you envisioned above.

You are saying that the whole shell of the nuclear bomb is destroyed and that a lump of nuclear material just vanish in the skies or just magically land in a collector on the ground in one piece?

I am saying that an intercepted ICBM does not necessarily need to be vaporized to be rendered ineffective. Does every aircraft mishap result in the airliner being vaporized? Of course not. It is entirely possible that a fissile chamber would survive intact. Do not Black-Boxes survive airplane crashes intact? Some decades ago, a US military craft accidently dropped a nuclear device in the waters off Spain. Was Spain contaminated?

You are assuming certain conditions, but you lack the technical expertise to set the parameters of your scenarios. If you were an undergrad student of mine, I would rip you a new one. You can't generalize about such a broad and complex topic. Be specific and concise.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you understand game theory you will understand that your enemy is less likely to attack you, if he or she is unsure of what kind or response your reply will be to their attack. Secondly, if the response would cause disproportionate carnage to the attacker or inhibit a potential attack, the agressor is less likely to attack.

You don't get it do you? Western Europe remained free because the U.S were willing to place very large forces in Europe as a deterent. Let me remind you that Marxist ideology states that the revolution must expand to all workers of the globe. The only reason that the Red Army and Warsaw forces did not attack Western Europe, was because the Soviets knew they would actually meet millitary resistance. If Europe had gone for the pacifist model which you seem to support, it seems highly likely that you favourite little body, the EU would never exist. Most likely substituted by the Supreme Soviet Council of Europe.

Millitary capability that can blunt a potential nuclear attack is a worthwhile investment. End of.

Actually the EU is not that much different from the Soviet system of governance.

Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship | The Brussels Journal

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.