Hypothetical: Would you want the US to have the SDI?

[Commodore]

Further, when such a system was (say) 90% complete, the other side would be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Fire at the US while it still can or accept US domination.

All the more reason to develop such a shield covertly; which I am sure has actually been occurring.

To add to this hypothetical question: What if the US announced the development of this SDI system, but also agreed to dispose of its own nuclear arsenal at the same time? Essentially building its shield, but surrendering its sword. Assuming the US actually held to such a bargain, would that do anything to assuage the world's fears of this being an attempt by the US to dominate the world?

 

[James Stuart]

All the more reason to develop such a shield covertly; which I am sure has actually been occurring.

To add to this hypothetical question: What if the US announced the development of this SDI system, but also agreed to dispose of its own nuclear arsenal at the same time? Essentially building its shield, but surrendering its sword. Assuming the US actually held to such a bargain, would that do anything to assuage the world's fears of this being an attempt by the US to dominate the world?

I doubt it. People tend not to believe it when government's claim to be doing selfless things. They're usually rightto do so, because the government in question is almost always either lying, or up to something.

 

[bhsup]

All the more reason to develop such a shield covertly; which I am sure has actually been occurring.

To add to this hypothetical question: What if the US announced the development of this SDI system, but also agreed to dispose of its own nuclear arsenal at the same time? Essentially building its shield, but surrendering its sword. Assuming the US actually held to such a bargain, would that do anything to assuage the world's fears of this being an attempt by the US to dominate the world?

Well, if we're going to abandon our sword, I'd rather our shield be a Cobalt Thorium G device than SDI.

 

[Hygro]

I wonder why they never tried. Possibly because SDI was mostly a financial black hole producing nothing much of value. And then it was quietly abandoned.

Of course, Reagan knew it, and tried to use it as a bargaining chip in Reykyavik. Oddly, Gorbachov wouldn't take the bait.



Yeah, I heard about this 'money isn't real' thread. Oh wait, I actually posted a comment. But thanks for the ad hominem innuendo. What would life on CFC be without it... Pleasant, maybe.

SDI might have been a poor use of resources but the financing part is largely irrelevant.
Sir, there are incoming missiles!
Shoot them down with the Space Lazer!
Sir, we don't actually have a space laser.
What? Why not?
Because we weren't comfortable keying in a number on a spreadsheet because then it wouldn't look pretty and symmetrical and sum to zero.

And then we allllll died.

 

[CavLancer]

As long as we have allies that need protecting its impossible to abandon the sword. Btw to my knowledge they have not yet invented a shield that keeps out clouds of radioactive particles so... Kind of pointless.

'I know, we can build this huge missile shield that will prevent a quick death so we can enjoy a slow one later.'

For any shield to be effective it has to be offensive, aimed at destroying nuclear weapons while at the same time not itself using nuclear weapons.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

SDI might have been a poor use of resources but the financing part is largely irrelevant.
Sir, there are incoming missiles!
Shoot them down with the Space Lazer!
Sir, we don't actually have a space laser.
What? Why not?
Because we weren't comfortable keying in a number on a spreadsheet because then it wouldn't look pretty and symmetrical and sum to zero.

And then we allllll died.

Not allllll. However, the survivors would need the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, as far as men were concerned.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I don't think SDI would be a good idea.

The Russians would just move on to the next logical step, Gigaton mines sailed up to our coastline in stealth subs.

 

[Commodore]

I doubt it. People tend not to believe it when government's claim to be doing selfless things. They're usually rightto do so, because the government in question is almost always either lying, or up to something.

That's why I said "assuming the US actually held to the bargain."

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

As long as the South Americans don't hijack it.

 

[Saigon]

When it comes to using nukes against civilians, the US has the worst track record of any nation.

So no, I don't want them to have the SDI.

The amount of fear-mongering and non-sense in this thread is staggering.

 

[warpus]

Well, he isn't wrong about the U.S. being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on civilians..

unless you know something I don't.

 

[Saigon]

Well, he isn't wrong about the U.S. being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on civilians..

unless you know something I don't.

"USA is evil because they justifiably nuked Japan 70 years ago!!!!"

It's ridiculous.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It is all about where you are from. Being European i would feel safer with USA or France or UK having nukes and SDI instead of China or Russia, if i was Chinesse or Russian or Iranian or North Korean etc, it would be the other way around.

 

[LamaGT]

"USA is evil because they justifiably nuked Japan 70 years ago!!!!"

It's ridiculous.

Oh if only it was just for that...

 

[warpus]

"USA is evil because they justifiably nuked Japan 70 years ago!!!!"

It's ridiculous.

He didn't say he doesn't want them to have SDI because they're evil, he says he doesn't want them to have SDI because they have a bad track record with nuclear weapons.

It might not be a good criteria to decide whether you should allow someone to have SDI or not, but the data it would be based on is solid.

 

[Saigon]

He didn't say he doesn't want them to have SDI because they're evil, he says he doesn't want them to have SDI because they have a bad track record with nuclear weapons.

It might not be a good criteria to decide whether you should allow someone to have SDI or not, but the data it would be based on is solid.

The only time we ever used nuclear weapons was during World War II and it is almost universally considered justified (and it was by contemporaries at the time as well).

 

[James Stuart]

That's why I said "assuming the US actually held to the bargain."

You also asked if it would help assuage fears. It won't, because even if the US behaves with total honesty, no one will believe it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

As long as we have allies that need protecting its impossible to abandon the sword. Btw to my knowledge they have not yet invented a shield that keeps out clouds of radioactive particles so... Kind of pointless.

'I know, we can build this huge missile shield that will prevent a quick death so we can enjoy a slow one later.'

For any shield to be effective it has to be offensive, aimed at destroying nuclear weapons while at the same time not itself using nuclear weapons.

Russia would build "Doomsdays device" and then not tell the world
Pretty sure the USA could build some Vaults, and invade Canada. (Start hording those bottle caps CavLancer)