hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
It's not avoiding the issue or nonsense. It is what it is. That it has value in enabling an offensive use of nuclear weapons doesn't discount its defensive use.Come on hobbs, the first one is nonsense (the purpose of missile defense is....missile defense? that's a way of avoiding the issue, the reason we want to defend against enemy missiles is to threaten them with our missiles with impunity), and I don't think the second one works because a rogue state looking to nuke the US probably wouldn't bother with a ballistic missile.
Just because I can use a rifle to kill people doesn't mean it can also be used for recreation or hunting. Same thing here.
Actually our attempts at missile defense go way back to the 50's with systems like Nike-Zeus. Back then the approach was to attempt to nuke the incoming nukes and hope for the best. It was primitive and counterproductive but we spent a ton of money on it anyways. There were on-again, off-again attempts at missile defense from that point up until Reagan kicked it into super high gear. It's worth noting that Reagan's program was based on lies and gross exaggerations by one of his science advisors that was gung-ho on the concept and wanted all the monies to study it and attempt to build a system.I'd say since Reagan's Star Wars initiative. Now, we can sometimes hit an ICBM if we know when it's coming, at what speed, in what trajectory.