- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
You are aware that there are other classes of offensive missiles which aren't ICBMs? (Like, oh, the ones targeted in the tests?) Or perhaps you're using "ICBM" to mean something that it doesn't?
I only responded to the part that was necessary to respond to.lol. I noticed you deliberately ignored the rest of my post.
Given that he is not in power.... no. Irrelevant.Your entire argument is based on comments, many comments made during bad economies. Care to look at the statements made by the past Iranian president during the economic boom?
Hardly.You have completely failed to understand the notion of political unity within a country and how leaders make statements to maintain that.
Because, according to the beliefs so very openly expressed, it is the right thing to do.We do know that the primary goal of both regimes is to stay n power. Nothing they have ever done has ever risked that. Why would they use a weapon that would in turn make them into radioactive ash?
If no one is going to use these weapons, why/how is proliferation an issue?The problem with North Korea getting a weapon isn't that they will use it. It is the proliferation as their economy is in the tank. Iran's problem is not that they will use it, it is that everyone else in the middle east will want one as a deterrent.
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".
That sounds like a big liberal welfare system to me.
I only responded to the part that was necessary to respond to.
Given that he is not in power.... no. Irrelevant.
So... you;re arguing that we should not take AchmedJihad at his word, that his rhetoric is just some delusional smoke screen?
Hardly.
Because, according to the beliefs so very openly expressed, it is the right thing to do.
You seem to think that the Jihadist is worried about his own survival or the survival of his 'people'. There are mounds of evidence to oppose this.
If no one is going to use these weapons, why/how is proliferation an issue?
Sure it does when caricature and misrepresent the arguments of those you disagree with.
'Nuff said.
Carry on.
You havent been around very long, then.No one said it will never work
Over the 50 years it weill take to reach that amount, that's not all that much.Throw enough money at it (like you guys are implicitly arguing) and it will eventually work. True the costs may top out at $500 billion...
You disagree with the liberals' approach to social problems as applied to the defense of the union? Why?...but hey, throw enough money at it and it will work!
That's because you arent familiar enough with the operation of the NMD and how it engages targets. Simply put, if it cannot tell if a target is real or not, it shoots at it. This means it might engage mylar balloons, but it alos means it wont not engage a real warhead.Well, it will work at least in hitting some of them (whether or not it's the one with the warhead, that's questionable). An intelligent enemy will simply use countermeasures to by pass the system. I have yet to see any of you offer an explanation to get around the Mylar balloon decoy problem.
Yes. Its messy,Hell, I'm the only one who had an counter counter measure, but there's a reason the US abandoned nuclear interceptors long ago.
Threat A necessitates Defense AThe issue is allocation of resources away from likely methods we'll be attacked by. If you bothered to pay any attention you would have noticed this long ago.
Explain to me why we should spend billions on a system that does not defend us from the most likely source of attack and when the current system of MAD is functioning well.
See above. Add Threat C, Defense C.Furthermore, explain to me why we don't spend missile defense on securing fissile material. We could secure ALL of the fissile material on the planet for much cheaper then the missile defense. Without fissile material, there is no nuke. At best they could use a chemical or biological weapon, but we'd in turn react causing huge damage to them. MAD still functions.
lol. Coming from someone who declares people he disagrees with "liars" when he can't deal with their arguments.
Why would I responde to the things that I agree with or that are irrelevant?Aka, things you don't like.
And thus, this supports the "unstable" argument. Thanks.So no, you have no intention of learning a damn thing about your enemy's history. That's pretty sad. No, we shouldn't take him at his word.
Hardly.lol. Says the one who doesn't even want to look at history.
You dont understand the policy, and how 'survival' fits in.Yet their actions since the Revolution has always sought to maintain Mullah power in Iran. Explain to me why they would instantly change that long standing policy.
See above. A means to an end.The whole notion that the Mullahs are incapable of reason is just laughable.
So, the danger IS that someone will use them.Incorrect. No state is going to use those weapons. That doesn't mean North Korea won't sell the plans and actual weapons to god knows who. Furthermore, proliferation to states increases risks of more weapons being developed and more highly enriched fuel being made. That can be stolen as evident by tests on our OWN facilities.
You havent been around very long, then.
Over the 50 years it weill take to reach that amount, that's not all that much.
You disagree with the liberals' approach to social problems as applied to the defense of the union? Why?
That's because you arent familiar enough with the operation of the NMD and how it engages targets. Simply put, if it cannot tell if a target is real or not, it shoots at it. This means it might engage mylar balloons, but it alos means it wont not engage a real warhead.
(Note that a balloon will quickly accelerate when it interfaces with the top of the atmosphere, giving away its nature and allowing the BMS to ignore it)
Yes. Its messy,
Aside from that -- you REALLY think you're on the leading edge of missile defense theory?
Why would I responde to the things that I agree with or that are irrelevant?
And thus, this supports the "unstable" argument. Thanks.
Hardly.
You dont understand the policy, and how 'survival' fits in.
Survival is a means to an end -- one bides his time in order to amass the means necessary to strike an effective blow to the infidel. In this case, it means acquiring nuclear weapons to destory Israel.
The ends are all that matter.
See above. A means to an end.
Create a strawman and ask me to support it.
Very unclever.
So, the danger IS that someone will use them.
Make up your mind.
You are aware of the subject at hand, right?Define "never work." What's the context?
$10B/yr is not a lot of money, when you're talking about government spending.Good god. You sound like a fiscal liberal.
Glad to see you oppose the usual liberal solution to social problems.Because throwing money at anything is rarely the solution.
Interesting that those in charge of developing the NMD set the number of viable decoys per missile at 5. What do you know that those people do not?LOL. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A Mylar balloon, or to be more accurate, dozens if not hundreds would be released while in space.
No... but they eventually reach the interface, while the real RVs are still witnin the engagement cone of the NMD. This seperates the real from the fake targets.Good thing they aren't released there.
Red Herring. You assume that the missile threat to the US isnt legitimate.I see you are again ignoring large parts of my post. Just because a threat exists doesn't mean you automatically defend against it. There is a threat of Alien invasion. Are we spending billions on that?
See above.Deal with the problem we are most likely to face.
And, you do this in countries that produce their own.... how?The BEST and CHEAPEST solution is to reduce fissile material around the world.
You can put all kinds of thing into an RV. If not a nuke, then other WMDs.Explain to me how a ICBM without a nuke is a serious threat.
You dont like that I dont respond to the irrelevant sections of yoru posts.I asked you to use something other then superficial statements. You deliberately did not quote that part of my post. How many times have you taken politicians at face value? :rofl
Like this.Incorrect. You want it to, despite it not, therefore you think it does. Willful delusions.
And this.Spamming aren't we?
Cost/benefit. The damage they could do with non-nuclear weapons isnt enough.If that was true, why didn't Iran use its huge amounts of chemical weapons to eliminate Israel?
The Jihad is multi-generational. Given that, you need to have a healty, edicated population base to pursue said Juhad.So, explain to me, if the Mullahs had one goal of launching a few weapons at the US, not destroying it and be in turn completed annihilated, why are they spending money on hospitals, schools, all that stuff that doesn't achieve their goals?
As the desert said to the grain of sandYour argument was idiotic as it ignored the history of the Mullahs.
See above.Do you always argue this dishonestly?
Yes. Gaining control of US ICBMs and using them on US cities is the simplest and easiet option for terrorists who want to nuke US cities.
:roll:
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".
Goobieman said:Of course, the arguments currently in place arent much better, but at least its detractors have decided that paerticular tack doesnt get them anywhere.
That doesnt in any way address the actual capability of the NMD -- that is, its ability to hit an incoming ICBM. There's NO support for the argument that it doesn't work.I can't speak for all opponents, but *I* am certainly not moving away from that position. You can make the NMD smarter, but our enemies will make their missiles smarter.
As posted before:There are plenty of good arguments to oppose the NMD. Such as:
1. This doesn't reduce the risk of a nuclear attack since the main threat doesn't come from missiles in the first place.
Same response as above.2. Every dollar spent on the NMD is one dollar less that can be spent on something that will actually protect Americans
Really.3. The cost-benefit analysis is absurd. The marginal benefit of having a NMD (even if it worked perfectly) is simply not worth the marginal cost of building and maintaining it.
False. The 50 or so warheads the NMD is designed to stop doesnt affect anyone's deterrence.4. The National Missile "Defense" is actually an offensive weapons system, because if it worked it would eliminate the nuclear deterrent of other nations.
See above.5. There is no need to make Russia (or other nuclear powers) panic and do something stupid.
There's no support for the argument that it doesn't work.6. It doesn't work.
who knows, but we do know that missiles exist so don't u think it could be possibly beneficial to be able to shoot them down?
That doesnt in any way address the actual capability of the NMD -- that is, its ability to hit an incoming ICBM. There's NO support for the argument that it doesn't work.
Goobieman said:As posted before:
Threat A, Defense A...
Goobieman said:Really.
What's the cost of a 250kt weapon going off over Los Angeles?
Goobieman said:False. The 50 or so warheads the NMD is designed to stop doesnt affect anyone's deterrence.
Our competitors are the likes of N Korea and Iran.As long as our competitors have anything CLOSE to technological parity with us (as in they aren't using swords and shields against our stealth bombers), their missile technology will always be a step ahead of our anti-missile technology
No, that's reality. There are many threats, and many defenses.That is idiotic.
The 'benefit' is that he have the ability to protect US cities from a limited nuke strike. The effective measure of this then is the loss of one of those cities.Incorrect measurement of the benefit of a missile defense shield.
In order for this to be true, you have to show the cost of a US city - I choose LA- taking a 250kt airburst.The costs outweigh the benefits of the NMD by several orders of magnitude.
I'm -really- getting tired of having to explain the expressed purpose behind building a NMD. You people REALLY need to take some time and educate yourselves before enganing in these conversations.Really. Then why are we building it again?
I'm -really- getting tired of having to explain the expressed purpose behind building a NMD. You people REALLY need to take some time and educate yourselves before enganing in these conversations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?