'US is within our firing range'

[Willow]

Iran is what 5500 odd miles away? Isn't the longest missile range about 2000km? They'll have to rent a boat to get the warhead near us.

 

[Goobieman]

First of all, the quote that you cited is discussing Iraq and Afghanistan. Would our NMD protect Iraq and Afghanistan from missiles?[/quote}
Already addressed this.

Second of all, how much time/money will it cost to establish even the most basic NMD over the continental US, that deals only with missiles that AREN'T trying to purposely evade it?

Theere's one in place now.

Third of all, are there no military projects where that time/money could be more efficiently spent?

There are a lot of military projects.
How many will shoot down incoming ICBMs?

Fourth of all, I already know that you're going to say that just because there are other ways we can be attacked is no reason not to defend against THIS method of attack. This is irrational for a number of reasons.

Not that you've deomstrated where.

A) There are many ways to defend against OTHER methods of attack that are much more cost-effective and immediate,

That means nothing to the threat we face now and that we will face in the near future from Iranian and North Korean missiles. Fact is, we need both kids of defenses; that the attacks you describe might me someewhat more immediate does not in any eway mean we should not develop a NMD.

B) Even a fully-functional NMD is so laughably easy to circumvent that it simply isn't worth the tens of billions it would cost to implement even if we DIDN'T have other national security concerns,

Hmm. Please descibe how this is so easy, and then explain how the NMD doesnt account for it.

C) By this time this program even becomes operational,

...In October 2006...

it will already be obsolete because missiles themselves are already becoming an obsolete technology for our enemies.

Then why are Iran and N Korea developing them?

Finally, please tell me you aren't taking the words of some random Iranian cleric as justification for a multibillion dollar boondoggle.

There are more missile threats than just Iran -- why you want to ignore them is beyond me. Why do you want to deny the US the ability to shoot down ICBMs?

 

[Goobieman]

Iran is what 5500 odd miles away? Isn't the longest missile range about 2000km? They'll have to rent a boat to get the warhead near us.

Iran is close to putting a satellite in orbit.
That means you can drop a nuke anywhere in the US.

 

[Kandahar]

Theere's one in place now.

Oh really. So if someone decides to lob some missiles at us right now, this shield will shoot them down? I call bullshit.

There are a lot of military projects.
How many will shoot down incoming ICBMs?

This is really basic economics. Every dollar spent on THIS project is one less dollar that can be spent on some OTHER, more cost-effective defense project. Just because there aren't any other technologies that can accomplish this specific goal doesn't mean that we need to pursue it. As far as I know, the US military is not equipped to deal with UFO attacks either. How many billions should we spend developing a National UFO Defense shield?

That means nothing to the threat we face now and that we will face in the near future from Iranian and North Korean missiles. Fact is, we need both kids of defenses; that the attacks you describe might me someewhat more immediate does not in any eway mean we should not develop a NMD.

Actually, yes it does. We need to put our resources where they can be the most effective. And this program is toward the bottom of our list of priorities, right above a Bullet Defense Shield that stops bullets by shooting them down with bullets.

Hmm. Please descibe how this is so easy, and then explain how the NMD doesnt account for it.

A country could send 20 or 30 dummy missiles along with 1 real one. Do you feel lucky?

Or a country could just give it to a spy and tell him where to blow it up.

And it's entirely irrational to assert that this is some kind of radically different approach, and it's a major victory if the enemy has to go through that difficulty.

...In October 2006...

How effective is it, and how much does it cost. I'm talking about a WORKING national missile defense shield...you know, one that can actually shoot down missiles.

And cite your source.

Then why are Iran and N Korea developing them?

Because they aren't obsolete against OTHER countries. But if Iran or North Korea want to cause trouble for the United States, I guarantee you it won't be by lobbing a nuke at us from thousands of miles away.

There are more missile threats than just Iran -- why you want to ignore them is beyond me. Why do you want to deny the US the ability to shoot down ICBMs?

Why do you want to deny the US the ability to defend itself in the most cost-effective way?

 

[niftydrifty]

Diplomacy doesnt stop mssiles once they are launched, so I'll just take your post to that effect as yet another mindless stab at the Bush administration.

au contraire. what got us to this point w Iran in the first place?

 

[Kandahar]

Iran is close to putting a satellite in orbit.
That means you can drop a nuke anywhere in the US.

If all it takes is a satellite, maybe Time Warner and Nokia will fight a nuclear war soon. Are they party to the NPT? :lol:

 

[Goobieman]

Oh really. So if someone decides to lob some missiles at us right now, this shield will shoot them down? I call bullshit.

On what grounds? It went on-line in June of lat year.
MissileThreat :: Missile Defense System Declared “Operational”
Oh wait -- you didn tknow that...

This is really basic economics. Every dollar spent on THIS project is one less dollar that can be spent on some OTHER, more cost-effective defense project. Just because there aren't any other technologies that can accomplish this specific goal doesn't mean that we need to pursue it.

You didnt answer the question -- how many of those projects will shoot down ICBMs?

What you seen to be avoiding here is that a defense against ballistic missiles is necessary as ballisic missiles from less-than-predictable 'rogue states' are a developing threat, and have been a developing threat for some time.

Its amazing that Bill Clinton saw this threat way back in 1996 hen he OKd the development of the NMD, and yet you dont see it now.

Actually, yes it does. We need to put our resources where they can be the most effective. And this program is toward the bottom of our list of priorities,

Based on... what?
-Both NK and Iran are developing nukes.
-Both Nm and Iran are developing missiles that can deliver them here.
On what basis can it be said that these things do not constitute a real threat to the US and that a defense against them is not necessary?

A country could send 20 or 30 dummy missiles along with 1 real one. Do you feel lucky?

You didnt answwer the second, so very important, part of the question.
How does the NMD not account for this?

Or a country could just give it to a spy and tell him where to blow it up.

Threat B v Defense A. That a machinegun wont stop a tank in no way invalidates the usefulness of the machinegun against the threats it is designed to stop.

And it's entirely irrational to assert that this is some kind of radically different approach, and it's a major victory if the enemy has to go through that difficulty.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

How effective is it, and how much does it cost. I'm talking about a WORKING national missile defense shield...you know, one that can actually shoot down missiles.

The GBI system currently im place, in testing, is 6 for 9 in hit-to-kill tests.
2 of the misses were due to failures in surrogate systems that are not part of the deployed system but were used so that the tests could be preformed while the systems they stood in for were developed.
One of the misses was due to a malfunction on the IR seekes of the IKV and therefore was a legitimate miss.
National Missile Defense Testing

So, 6 hits our of 7 legitimate tests. Seems pretty effective to me.
Tell me why anyone should think that it should not be consiered "effective".

Because they aren't obsolete against OTHER countries.

You mean like Japan or Europe?
Well, if the NMD forces our enemies to use their missiles against someone besides us, it is then 100% effective in protecting us. Of course, we've offered our allies access to the system, so...

But if Iran or North Korea want to cause trouble for the United States, I guarantee you it won't be by lobbing a nuke at us from thousands of miles away.

And yet that's exactly the capability they are trying to develop.
You can delude yourself into thinking that they wont ever launch those missiles against us, but no sane person would ever willingly take that chance.

Why do you want to deny the US the ability to defend itself in the most cost-effective way?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by theis, and when have I argued such a thing?
YOU, on the other hand, have argued against the very convept of the NMD.
You dont want the US to be able to shoot doen incoming ICBMs.
Why?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Kandahar writes

But if Iran or North Korea want to cause trouble for the United States, I guarantee you it won't be by lobbing a nuke at us from thousands of miles away.

An assumption of what another group/country/sect/etc. WON'T do or CAN"T do, especially when our national security is based on such assumption, is a huge red flag literally inviting them to do it. Humankind has operated on such assumptions in the past at a cost of many millions of lives across the globe. Given the even greater threat now with the prevalence of WMD, I suggest we think a whole lot smarter than we once did.

 

[Moot]

I just have a question regarding interceptor missles that maybe someone can help answer.

Suppose, just suppose US interceptor missles were reliable enough to hit an incoming nuclear missile, what would happen? Wouldn't the nuclear warhead just explode up in the atmosphere where it could spread nuclear fallout over a wider area than if it just hit its target and only effected those down wind from the explosion?

 

[Goobieman]

I just have a question regarding interceptor missles that maybe someone can help answer.

Suppose, just suppose US interceptor missles were reliable enough to hit an incoming nuclear missile, what would happen? Wouldn't the nuclear warhead just explode up in the atmosphere where it could spread nuclear fallout over a wider area than if it just hit its target and only effected those down wind from the explosion?

No. It might 'explode' but it will not detonate. Depending on when it is hit, the debris will likely burn up in the atmosphere. Lighter particles will remain aloft for quite some time, while heavier particles will drop more quicklly.

Potential damage from this fallout must be compared to the potential damage from the weapon going off over LA or Denver or Chicago or NYC. Consider that the radioactive material in the typical physics package is measured in a few tens of Kilograms.

 

[PolySciGuy]

I think one of the benefits of the NMD system is it turns a nuclear warhead into a viable weapon once again. I dunno if there is any real need now, but can you imagine the intimidation factor of complete and total obliteration? The thing is that we would not have to use them at all, but hostile countries would think twice before threatening us.

I know someone is going to yell at me about this, but think about it. If you were a seperate country and I told you to disarm, or we would completely destroy you. I think you would disarm.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think one of the benefits of the NMD system is it turns a nuclear warhead into a viable weapon once again. I dunno if there is any real need now, but can you imagine the intimidation factor of complete and total obliteration? The thing is that we would not have to use them at all, but hostile countries would think twice before threatening us.

I know someone is going to yell at me about this, but think about it. If you were a seperate country and I told you to disarm, or we would completely destroy you. I think you would disarm.

I think there are too many factors involved to accept that as the logical response. If you are dealing with nutcases like Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or any culture in which honor is more important than life or sucide in the name of Allah (or some other diety) is a certain ticket to heaven, don't bet on threats having any affect whatsoever. Given his lifelong lack of concern for the people, I wonder if even a dying Fidel Castro would care if his country was nuked to put him out of his misery. The people of Earth have developed too many cultures that do not value the sanctity of life from the womb on.

And it is very likely that we are going to be faced with more and more decisions of whether to render the savage beasts toothless or make it impossible for them to attack us or strike first before we are struck. We will be forced to debate the morality of killing to prevent being killed.

Personally I favor letting the good guys live and consider those who are intent on killing innocents to be the ones who should be expendable.

 

[PolySciGuy]

I think there are too many factors involved to accept that as the logical response. If you are dealing with nutcases like Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or any culture in which honor is more important than life or sucide in the name of Allah (or some other diety) is a certain ticket to heaven, don't bet on threats having any affect whatsoever. Given his lifelong lack of concern for the people, I wonder if even a dying Fidel Castro would care if his country was nuked to put him out of his misery. The people of Earth have developed too many cultures that do not value the sanctity of life from the womb on.

And it is very likely that we are going to be faced with more and more decisions of whether to render the savage beasts toothless or make it impossible for them to attack us or strike first before we are struck. We will be forced to debate the morality of killing to prevent being killed.

Personally I favor letting the good guys live and consider those who are intent on killing innocents to be the ones who should be expendable.

I suppose you are right, but who are the good guys if we are inadvertently killing innocents?

 

[BudLizard101]

I suppose you are right, but who are the good guys if we are inadvertently killing innocents?

Inadvertently killing innocents vs targeting innocents. Guess who the good guys are.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Inadvertently killing innocents vs targeting innocents. Guess who the good guys are.

its funny, but that small little sentence completely gave me what I have been missing in some of my arguments, thank you so very much

 

[AlbqOwl]

That one little sentence is crucial in the conduct of war, however. There are people on earth who intentionally target innocent men, women, and children and consider the infidel saints to be no different from uniformed soldiers or criminals. Their purpose is to create as much terror as possible through death, injuring, maiming, and horror. They are the bad guys.

And there are the rest of us who have to decide what price we will pay to stop the bad guys. The single thing that makes war so horrible, indefensible, obscene, and unconscionable is that there is no way to conduct it without harming some innocents. And evenso, war is not the most terrible thing there is.

So we do what we can reasonably do to minimize the tragedies, but there are times that some must be inadvertently sacrificed in order to save many.

 

[BubbaBob]

well, they may be wrong. we might just need it, now. the best NMD would be an administration that takes diplomacy seriously.

Yep...history proves that talking it to death will work...worked for Neville Chamberlain, right?

BubbaBob