Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
I have nothing against developing them. I would rather they spend the money of research instead of building something that does not appear to be effective at the moment.


Well the money in Canada's going to neither option right now so we both loose. :(

Fiscal con. wrote:
Quote:
What I am trying to say here is that the money would be much better spent on research, to increase the technology gap between the Americans and their enemies.


A anti-missile shield would fit that category wouldn't it? And like any good weapon/invention their has to be prototypes in field tests.

Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
To make another WW2 analogy (I know you like them), before WW2, France spent a small fortune building a massive system of fortifications called the Maginot Line. It was built on the German border and was designed to stop a German assault.
The Germans never directly assaulted. They simply went around it because it did not cover the border with Belgium.
Had the French spent all that money on tanks and airplanes, WW2 might have turned out different.


Yes :lol: yes I do like ww2 analogies...
I will get back to you one one of my own.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fiscal con: about the ww2 analogy I have found a flaw in yours instead of making one of my own. If the french had built the Maginot line across the whole border it would have worked! The Germans weren't dumb though and so they went around it. That is like the equivalent of building a anti-missile shield for 40 of the states and then wondering why the shield did not work (the terrorists would hit the states that aren't protected).
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
Fiscal con: about the ww2 analogy I have found a flaw in yours instead of making one of my own. If the french had built the Maginot line across the whole border it would have worked! The Germans weren't dumb though and so they went around it. That is like the equivalent of building a anti-missile shield for 40 of the states and then wondering why the shield did not work (the terrorists would hit the states that aren't protected).


The analogy I meant to make was this. There is no point wasting all your money to defend against one sort of attack when it can simply be replaced by another. THe Maginot line was useless because the Germans could simply avoid it by making an attack through Belgium.

The anti-missle system could be avoided by simply delivering the weapon through much easier means (a shipping container, a submarine, a passanger jet, etc).
As I pointed out earlier, delivering it by a shipping container might be the perfered choice anyway.

I suppose another analogy along this line would be installing a bank vault door on the front of your house. Does it make you any safer ? Probably not, a thief would just use the back door or a window instead.

Show me any weapons system and I will show you a gaint government spending project. Like many government spending projects, sometimes they are not run well. They don't meet objectives, they become obsolete or fail because of mismanagement. Despite this, the people involved have a vested interest in making sure they continue.
Sort of like the gun registry. To the US military, a gun registry type fiasco is nothing.
Read the book "Pentagon wars" (there was also a comedy movie with Kelsey Grammar loosely based on the book).
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
The anti-missle system could be avoided by simply delivering the weapon through much easier means (a shipping container, a submarine, a passanger jet, etc).
As I pointed out earlier, delivering it by a shipping container might be the perfered choice anyway.


So what your saying is "why bother trying to protect us from missile launching terrorists when they will find a way to attack us anyway".
What you are missing though is that a missile shield prevents missiles, if we don't build one then we will be attacked by missiles and if we do build one we may get attacked in another way but not by missiles. We might as well tick missiles of the list of ways that we can be attacked, right?
darkstorme





Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 18
Reputation: 21.6Reputation: 21.6

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
So what your saying is "why bother trying to protect us from missile launching terrorists when they will find a way to attack us anyway".
What you are missing though is that a missile shield prevents missiles, if we don't build one then we will be attacked by missiles and if we do build one we may get attacked in another way but not by missiles. We might as well tick missiles of the list of ways that we can be attacked, right?


Well, that's not exactly what he's saying. Like his name suggests, fiscalconservative can recognize a massive waste of money when he sees it. The current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense ABM deployment by the United States (three bases, one in California, one in Alaska, one - government permitting - in Poland) is equipped with ground-based kinetic warhead interceptors. In the fourteen tests (against friendly missiles, mind you, when they knew where the missiles were headed) that this system has undergone, eight of the missiles were successfully intercepted. In other words, this would be, at best, from current estimates, a 57% effective shield.

"Well, that stops more than half," I hear you say. "Isn't that worth deploying?" Well, fiscalconservative did point out that yes, it's progress. Head-to-head interception in the ballistic phase of a missile attack was a pipe dream, even in the 1980s, so even 50% is pretty impressive. But it's not mature enough for deployment. The current scheme cost fifty-three billion dollars in the 2004-2008 military budget. A more substantial deployment, doubtless, would cost more. And it only stops (at best!) 57% of all missile attacks. And, again as fiscalconservative correctly pointed out, it wouldn't really stop "terrorist" attacks at all, since terrorists generally can't get their hands on an ICBM. They MIGHT be able to get their hands on a big, cumbersome bomb that could be packed up in a shipping crate, though. So, hundreds of billions of dollars for a "shield" that stops a little more than half of all missile attacks, and is completely ineffectual against terrorist nuclear attacks. That doesn't sound like money well-spent - particularly when neither we nor the US have money to spend.

As has been correctly pointed out by others in this thread, Russia's saber-rattling in the face of increased ABM deployment is also a concern. While I realize that you've already been pretty solidly refuted on this point, Rusty, it was so very wrong that I feel it needs another look:
Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

By building an ANTI-missle sheld we are effectivly rendering Nucular War heads useless. So why would the russians build arms to shoot a a country that they would have no effect on?

This is what bothers me about the don't get a missle shild argument. If we have a sheld, it does not matter who we provoke by defending ourselves because there warheads will be useless. Rendering Nukes useless should be a good thing!


Now, I'll try to hit all the points you've failed to make there:

  • Current technology limits this anti-missile shield to about 60% effectiveness (erring on the side of generosity) - against a single, limited attack. There aren't nearly enough interceptor missiles deployed to defend against an attack from a major nuclear power. With our current technology, trying to deploy enough interceptors to defend against a nuclear attack from a major nuclear power would bankrupt any country on the globe. And it still wouldn't be 100% effective.
  • "Arms race" doesn't mean "who can build the most bombs". That became pointless after both sides in the Cold War reached the point where they could effectively wipe out every major city in the world. It means "advancing technology". And while classified research is easy to keep under wraps in a laboratory, it's much harder to keep quiet when you're deploying hundreds of missiles. At that point, the Russians, the Chinese, or anyone else with the money and the inclination could start researching ways to incorporate countermeasures into their missiles to render an astonishingly expensive project worthless.
  • I've restated several times that current technology is a long way from 100% effective - and this is good, because if it WERE 100% effective, and one super-power (say, the US) started deploying it, you can bet that the other superpowers would prime their weapons and demand that they either stop or help them deploy identical systems in their own country. Because if the US no longer had to fear nuclear retaliation, the principle of MAD would no longer apply - and then all you'd need would be a warhawk in the Oval Office. And I wouldn't say it was impossible that another country might consider a first-strike scenario to prevent that from happening.


Finally, there's one other point that I, personally, was concerned about when there was talk of deploying interceptor missiles in Canada's north. China, Russia, and a number of other countries, if they intended to hit the US with an ICBM, would pop it up and over the north pole - and therefore over Canada on their way to the US. Until it reached about, say, northern Alberta, the missile would be exoatmospheric - an entirely untested area, save for the successful kill of a deorbiting American satellite this past summer. So it's probably a high-atmosphere intercept that the US has in mind... which would leave radioactive debris falling where, precisely?

I'm all for money going to research in this area, for sure - the potential benefits to aeronautics and a host of other disciplines are huge. But deploying a technology that is only effective half the time against a limited attack by conventional means that most terrorists wouldn't use, that would have little effect other than to drain more money from government coffers and raise tensions worldwide?

No thank you.

PS. Rusty - it's "nuclear", pronounced "new-clear", and "missile". Also, "shield", "their", and "warheads". For your claim of using Google Toolbar to spellcheck the other day,you still seem to be missing a fair amount. You might want to switch to Firefox. I don't know if it has a "total misconception" filter, though.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darkstorme wrote:
Quote:
Well, that's not exactly what he's saying. Like his name suggests, fiscalconservative can recognize a massive waste of money when he sees it. The current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense ABM deployment by the United States (three bases, one in California, one in Alaska, one - government permitting - in Poland) is equipped with ground-based kinetic warhead interceptors. In the fourteen tests (against friendly missiles, mind you, when they knew where the missiles were headed) that this system has undergone, eight of the missiles were successfully intercepted. In other words, this would be, at best, from current estimates, a 57% effective shield.

"Well, that stops more than half," I hear you say. "Isn't that worth deploying?" Well, fiscalconservative did point out that yes, it's progress. Head-to-head interception in the ballistic phase of a missile attack was a pipe dream, even in the 1980s, so even 50% is pretty impressive. But it's not mature enough for deployment. The current scheme cost fifty-three billion dollars in the 2004-2008 military budget. A more substantial deployment, doubtless, would cost more. And it only stops (at best!) 57% of all missile attacks. And, again as fiscalconservative correctly pointed out, it wouldn't really stop "terrorist" attacks at all, since terrorists generally can't get their hands on an ICBM. They MIGHT be able to get their hands on a big, cumbersome bomb that could be packed up in a shipping crate, though. So, hundreds of billions of dollars for a "shield" that stops a little more than half of all missile attacks, and is completely ineffectual against terrorist nuclear attacks. That doesn't sound like money well-spent - particularly when neither we nor the US have money to spend.



I will refer specifically to this statement of yours...
Quote:
And it only stops (at best!) 57% of all missile attacks.


I believe several times you pointed out that it stops (I will be generous) 50% of attacks. That sounds crappy when you put it that way but think of it this way, for every missile stopped it would save up to 20 million people and the western worlds economies.

Quote:
The current scheme cost fifty-three billion dollars in the 2004-2008 military budget


Again I will be generous and say that 20 billion a year is needed for the next 10 years to develop this, I think you would agree with this statement. Why should the U.S. gov. not pay 20billion a year to effectively end the reins of North Korea, Iran or any other rouge state that has nukes or has aspirations for them. To save millions of lives and prevent a economic collapse (the economy of America would collapse if a nuke hit it, thus making them loose trillions) one should be willing to pay 20 billion a year until the end of time, no?


Quote:
And, again as fiscalconservative correctly pointed out, it wouldn't really stop "terrorist" attacks at all, since terrorists generally can't get their hands on an ICBM.


Uh darkstorme, since you think that it is hard for terrorists to get one nuke then with a anti missile shield they would need 2 to get one hit (statistically). Also you said generally, generally does not save lives, just because generally a enemy does have this weapon that does not mean we should not prepare for it.

Quote:
it's progress. Head-to-head interception in the ballistic phase of a missile attack was a pipe dream, even in the 1980s, so even 50% is pretty impressive. But it's not mature enough for deployment


So by not developing or building it, it will become "mature enough for development", this is not logical :?
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darksome wrote:
Quote:
Current technology limits this anti-missile shield to about 60% effectiveness (erring on the side of generosity) - against a single, limited attack. There aren't nearly enough interceptor missiles deployed to defend against an attack from a major nuclear power. With our current technology, trying to deploy enough interceptors to defend against a nuclear attack from a major nuclear power would bankrupt any country on the globe. And it still wouldn't be 100% effective.


So in this particular argument quoted above you are saying that we should not protect ourselves from nukes because then Russia will destroy the world? If the cold war has taught us anything it is that Russia respects mutual destruction, they aren't suicidal or irrational.


Quote:
"Arms race" doesn't mean "who can build the most bombs". That became pointless after both sides in the Cold War reached the point where they could effectively wipe out every major city in the world. It means "advancing technology". And while classified research is easy to keep under wraps in a laboratory, it's much harder to keep quiet when you're deploying hundreds of missiles. At that point, the Russians, the Chinese, or anyone else with the money and the inclination could start researching ways to incorporate countermeasures into their missiles to render an astonishingly expensive project worthless.


And we could render their counter measures useless by further developing our anti-missile's.


Quote:
I've restated several times that current technology is a long way from 100% effective - and this is good, because if it WERE 100% effective, and one super-power (say, the US) started deploying it, you can bet that the other superpowers would prime their weapons and demand that they either stop or help them deploy identical systems in their own country. Because if the US no longer had to fear nuclear retaliation, the principle of MAD would no longer apply - and then all you'd need would be a warhawk in the Oval Office. And I wouldn't say it was impossible that another country might consider a first-strike scenario to prevent that from happening.


A first strike scenario does not stop MAD, their are nuclear submarines to insure that even if all of America or Russia is destroyed the subs won't be and so in turn the subs will destroy the other country. Also their are deep underground launch sites in France that would not be affected by a nuke and I would assume America has these too.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darksome wrote:
Quote:
Finally, there's one other point that I, personally, was concerned about when there was talk of deploying interceptor missiles in Canada's north. China, Russia, and a number of other countries, if they intended to hit the US with an ICBM, would pop it up and over the north pole - and therefore over Canada on their way to the US. Until it reached about, say, northern Alberta, the missile would be exoatmospheric - an entirely untested area, save for the successful kill of a deorbiting American satellite this past summer. So it's probably a high-atmosphere intercept that the US has in mind... which would leave radioactive debris falling where, precisely?


In your case some where in Alberta but it would cost less lives then where ever it was supposed to hit, L.A., N.Y.,ETC.


Quote:
I'm all for money going to research in this area, for sure - the potential benefits to aeronautics and a host of other disciplines are huge. But deploying a technology that is only effective half the time against a limited attack by conventional means that most terrorists wouldn't use, that would have little effect other than to drain more money from government coffers and raise tensions worldwide?



"Only effective half the time"=saving millions of lives and possible the western world's economies

"that most terrorist terrorists wouldn't use"=some of them do have or want to use them, it is every terrorists dream to have a nuke, some of them have fulfilled their dream.

"that would drain more money from the governments"= that would prevent losing hundreds times of the amount spent on the anti missile shield, I do not need to remind you that if one nuke hit TRILLIOINS not billions would be lost, thus the possible gain far outweighs the cost.

"raise tentions world wide"=another way of saying, not doing what the bad guys want.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darkstorme wrote:
Quote:
For your claim of using Google Toolbar to spellcheck the other day,you still seem to be missing a fair amount. You might want to switch to Firefox. I don't know if it has a "total misconception" filter, though.


I dislike FireFox plus I don't have the new one with the spell check.

PS:since you are so into spelling I am sorry I spelt your name wrong a few times, hope you still can understand what was meant or do you need a total misconception filter? :wink:
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

"that most terrorist terrorists wouldn't use"=some of them do have or want to use them, it is every terrorists dream to have a nuke, some of them have fulfilled their dream.


Some terrorists have nukes ?

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

"that would drain more money from the governments"= that would prevent losing hundreds times of the amount spent on the anti missile shield, I do not need to remind you that if one nuke hit TRILLIOINS not billions would be lost, thus the possible gain far outweighs the cost.


That one nuke won't come by sea ?
As you said before, MAD works. Why would I fire a missile when the US would vaporize my country in response.
The attack would most likely be annoymous. 15 years from now, if LA blows up......was it Iran....China....Pakistan.....some former Soviet Republic......North Korea....Russia ?
They achieve their goal of messing up the US economy, but the US has nobody to attack back.

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

"raise tentions world wide"=another way of saying, not doing what the bad guys want.


The only way we can deal with the above senario is to stop nuclear proliferation. The fact that Bush managed to deeply piss off Russia and China does not help. If both these countries joined us in dealing with Iran, we could force them to drop their nuclear program.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
Some terrorists have nukes ?


Yes North Korea's leader for one.




Quote:
That one nuke won't come by sea ?
As you said before, MAD works. Why would I fire a missile when the US would vaporize my country in response.
The attack would most likely be annoymous. 15 years from now, if LA blows up......was it Iran....China....Pakistan.....some former Soviet Republic......North Korea....Russia ?
They achieve their goal of messing up the US economy, but the US has nobody to attack back.


MAD works on rational nations, example Russia not on Iran or North Korea because their leaders are mad!


Quote:
The only way we can deal with the above senario is to stop nuclear proliferation. The fact that Bush managed to deeply piss off Russia and China does not help. If both these countries joined us in dealing with Iran, we could force them to drop their nuclear program.


China and Russia don't give 2 shits about Iran and they never did, it's not bush's fault that china and russia are apathetic toward Iran, they have always been.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
Some terrorists have nukes ?


Yes North Korea's leader for one.



North Korea is a "rogue state", not a "terrorist"...sheesh, get your villians straight.



Quote:
That one nuke won't come by sea ?
As you said before, MAD works. Why would I fire a missile when the US would vaporize my country in response.
The attack would most likely be annoymous. 15 years from now, if LA blows up......was it Iran....China....Pakistan.....some former Soviet Republic......North Korea....Russia ?
They achieve their goal of messing up the US economy, but the US has nobody to attack back.


MAD works on rational nations, example Russia not on Iran or North Korea because their leaders are mad!

[/quote]

Well, you could argue that A) the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not mad, and B) they don't have the sort of control you seem to think they have.

North Korea has the 3rd (?) largest military in the world. That is even more of a threat than its handful of crude nuclear weapons. Have they used it ? No.....why not ? Because they would (eventually) lose a war-- MAD.

Iran could attack Israel...why haven't they ? MAD (maybe "mutual" would not be the right word here).

I could argue that from their own perspectives and ethical considerations, both the leader of Iran and North Korea have been very successful. How much money/supplies has been given to North Korea over the past 10 years ?

I would also question your view that the "mad" leaders of the countries have total control over starting a war. In Iran the real power lies with the head Ayatolah (SP?), not with the guy whose name I am not going to try to spell.
In North Korea you have very powerful military and party interests. Look what happened when the US cut off the foreign bank accounts of North Korea's right and famous. Kim blinked in a hurry.

Quote:
The only way we can deal with the above senario is to stop nuclear proliferation. The fact that Bush managed to deeply piss off Russia and China does not help. If both these countries joined us in dealing with Iran, we could force them to drop their nuclear program.

China and Russia don't give 2 shits about Iran and they never did, it's not bush's fault that china and russia are apathetic toward Iran, they have always been.


I can tell you the vast majority of the "coalition of the willing" did not give a single shit about Iraq, but signed on anyway. I can tell you the Liberals were not tripping over themselves trying to get the army into Afganistan.

Its all about diplomatic relationships.

To put it another way, your wife probably does not like doing the laundry and cooking dinner, but she does it because she is in a relationship. You probably do things you don't like (chick flicks/moving furniture around 100 times/ speaking with her mother/buying flowers) because you are in a relationship.

Now, picture this. Drink beer all day, walk around in your underwear when company is over, don't shower for a week. See how the quality of your dinner changes.

The same thing applies with Russia and Iran. Russia does not really have that much interest in Iran and they would really not lose a whole lot by putting the screws to them. The reason they don't is because at this point, they are happy to piss off the US because the US has pissed them off.

I think if the US quit trying to recruit Russia's neighbours into NATO, offered joint control over the useless missile system in Europe, etc, then the relationship might be a little better.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
North Korea is a "rogue state", not a "terrorist"...sheesh, get your villians straight.


Splitting hairs



Quote:
Well, you could argue that A) the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not mad, and B) they don't have the sort of control you seem to think they have.


:? I don't get this argument.


Quote:
North Korea has the 3rd (?) largest military in the world. That is even more of a threat than its handful of crude nuclear weapons. Have they used it ? No.....why not ? Because they would (eventually) lose a war-- MAD.


Not even close, he would be lucky to be in the top 10.


Quote:
Iran could attack Israel...why haven't they ? MAD (maybe "mutual" would not be the right word here).


Yes but why would MAD cease to exist with a missile shield? Because then Iran would feel threatened and would kill in a last ditch suicidal effort? let me remind you of one of your quotes "the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not mad,".




Quote:
Its all about diplomatic relationships.


Yes it is, and Russia and china have never given a shit about NATO so it's not bush's fault.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
North Korea is a "rogue state", not a "terrorist"...sheesh, get your villians straight.


Splitting hairs



Not really, there is a big difference between a country and a bunch of goat molesters hiding in a cave.

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:


Quote:
Well, you could argue that A) the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not mad, and B) they don't have the sort of control you seem to think they have.


:? I don't get this argument.


You stated that the concept of MAD didn't work with Iran and North Korea because their leaders are crazy. I was pointing out that their leaders do not have absolute control.
If amadeemacantspellhisname has a dream in which the missing mufti ordered him to start a war, he would not have the power. He would need approval from the head Ayatolah.
If the leader of North Korea wanted to start a war, he would need the support of the military and party aparatus. Look at what happened when the US cut of those bank accounts that the North Korean elite used to buy their cavier.....Kim caved in really quick.



Quote:
North Korea has the 3rd (?) largest military in the world. That is even more of a threat than its handful of crude nuclear weapons. Have they used it ? No.....why not ? Because they would (eventually) lose a war-- MAD.


Not even close, he would be lucky to be in the top 10.
[/quote]

5th largest army in the world. 20 percent of men between 17 and 54 are in the army (yikes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....orth_Korea





Quote:
Quote:
Iran could attack Israel...why haven't they ? MAD (maybe "mutual" would not be the right word here).


Yes but why would MAD cease to exist with a missile shield? Because then Iran would feel threatened and would kill in a last ditch suicidal effort? let me remind you of one of your quotes "the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not mad,".


Why would Iran feel threatened by Israel ? Right now there is a remote chance Israel might try to strike their weapons program....but once it is developed it is unlikely. Their is one sure fire way to avoid an attack by Israel - don't bother Israel.



Quote:
Its all about diplomatic relationships.


Yes it is, and Russia and china have never given a shit about NATO so it's not bush's fault.[/quote]

Russia does give a shit about its neighours joining NATO. Its a big deal to them and it has pissed them off.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative: I think we are moving away from the original argument. I will answer your questions in another post but for now let me restate my argument and tell you why I think yours is bad.

I think we should have a Anti-missile shield in the event we need it and it works.


You think that if we build one now, before it is built other nuclear nations will attack us before the shield is built and that we probably won't need the shield as most likely a terrorist won't shoot the nukes. I think this argument is bad because mad will apply to nations like russia while we should not be bending to the will of nations like N. Korea (they might even respect mad). Secondly we only have to have to have used the shield once for the 100billion dollars (that will be spent on it) to pay itself off.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB