Missle Shield Program

[BassDude726]

betazed, three of those examples are perfect reasons to strengthen domestic security measures... but smart bombs on stealth bombers? I don't think any country besides the US even has stealth bombers.

 

[h4ppy]

Those last two aren't as bad as a nuclear missile. The first one can be prevented too. The second one is going to be used whether or not there is a missile sheild.

 

[zulu9812]

A missile defence system is extremely dangerous because it removes the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction - it would allow America to nuke any country with impunity.

 

[Hakim]

@betazed: why does the missile shield deal with those threats as well? Shouldn't other measures be taken to address them?

 

[shadowdude]

Bazookas could be plenty of things.

• Long range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that a ballistic missile defense cannot see
• suitcase nukes that can be taken apart and build from parts shipped separately to US.
• Chem bio weapons (in smart bombs) dropped from stealth planes.
• a man carrying a dormat virus which activates itself after the man comes into US and then spreads from his corpse.

Need me to go on?

I don't think you can put a nuclear warhead on a cruise missle, plus cruise missles would have to be launched near the US border/coast, they don't have nearly the range of an ICBM

What other country has stealth planes? I thought it was the US only?

As for suit case nukes and viruses, lets hope that are security is tight.

 

[betazed]

@betazed: the objective would be to stop as many nukes as possible.

Nukes delivered in which way? In every way? Using ballistic missiles? But that is an impossible objective. A boomer off the east coast can deliver a nuclear missile on NY in minutes. No ballistic missile defense is going to stop nukes.

The only nukes that a missile shield may stop are ones that are launched from static sites thousands of miles away on a slow arc. For example, nukes from NK using their long range ballistic missile.

So that can be a valid objective.

But if that is your objective, why spend billions on a missile shield. Spend millions, maybe hundreds of millions on a covert operation to take out all their nukes in one go. Or even have a anti-missile ase permanently stationed at or near NK. That would do it. You can shoot down the nuclear missiles at the boost phase itself when they are most vulnerable instead of their terminal phase over Alaska when they are least vulnerable.

 

[betazed]

betazed, three of those examples are perfect reasons to strengthen domestic security measures... but smart bombs on stealth bombers? I don't think any country besides the US even has stealth bombers.

Right. As I said, my enemy currently has only sticks and stones because now all I have is a pistol. If I get an anti-aircraft then he will make his damndest best to get a bazooka. And when he does my newfangle anti-aircraft gun is useless.

 

[BassDude726]

Personally, I've decided to change my mind. The missile shield is basically a useless expenditure. Our enemies right now don't have ICBMs, they have airplanes and suicide bombers. Bush says we are living in the past if we oppose him, but if I'm not mistaken, the Cold War ended more than a decade ago. We need to strengthen our intelligence services, not our military. We need to adapt to a new threat, not pose new solutions to old threats.

 

[amadeus]

Of course it isn't worth it. I mean, we pay what...10, 20, 50 billion to save just what, 100 to 200 million Americans? Pfft. They're not worth that much.

 

[shadowdude]

Nukes delivered in which way? In every way? Using ballistic missiles? But that is an impossible objective. A boomer off the east coast can deliver a nuclear missile on NY in minutes. No ballistic missile defense is going to stop nukes.

And how many countries that are threats to the US have Nuclear submarines?

 

[betazed]

I don't think you can put a nuclear warhead on a cruise missle, plus cruise missles would have to be launched near the US border/coast, they don't have nearly the range of an ICBM

You do not need the range of an ICBM to hit US. typical cruise missiles can have thousands of miles in range. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/ShirleyCheung.shtml

So a ship thousands of miles off the coast can send a sea skimming cruise missile.

And yes, there is nothing that stops a cruise from having a nuke.

 

[BassDude726]

rmsharpe... Russia is the only country that has the capability to kill 200 million Americans. You seriously think that's a remote possibility?

EDIT: Russia is the only country with the capability to do it with ICBMs. Could probably be done other ways that a defense system couldnt prevent.

 

[betazed]

Of course it isn't worth it. I mean, we pay what...10, 20, 50 billion to save just what, 100 to 200 million Americans? Pfft. They're not worth that much.

Typical simplistic right wing argument. Care to put in some rational argument sharpe, instead of rhetoric?

 

[amadeus]

What is North Korea working on? Ballistic missiles.
What is Iran working on? Ballistic missiles.

Two countries run by nutcases developing nuclear weapons with long-range delivery systems.

 

[betazed]

What is North Korea working on? Ballistic missiles.
What is Iran working on? Ballistic missiles.

Two countries run by nutcases developing nuclear weapons with long-range delivery systems.

So?

if the above question does not make sense read all my previous posts first.

 

[zjl56]

betazed, three of those examples are perfect reasons to strengthen domestic security measures... but smart bombs on stealth bombers? I don't think any country besides the US even has stealth bombers.

Many countries problably have some sort of plan for a stealth bomber. Germany was preparing to build one late in the war.

 

[shadowdude]

You do not need the range of an ICBM to hit US. typical cruise missiles can have thousands of miles in range. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/ShirleyCheung.shtml

So a ship thousands of miles off the coast can send a sea skimming cruise missile.

And yes, there is nothing that stops a cruise from having a nuke.

Point taken.

But what other military has the equivilant of a cruise missle?
How would terrorists be able to get one and aim it at a US city, let alone launch it, it isn't like you're lighting off fireworks.
What terrorist would think of such an idea?

What are NK and Iran developing?

Conventinal ballistic missles, and thats what a missle shield is going to stop.

 

[Hakim]

Right. As I said, my enemy currently has only sticks and stones because now all I have is a pistol. If I get an anti-aircraft then he will make his damndest best to get a bazooka. And when he does my newfangle anti-aircraft gun is useless.

... and so are your navy, but that's not an argument for not having a navy. Besides, he's probably not using the stick to be fair but because he can't get a bazooka.

 

[echinococcus]

Many countries problably have some sort of plan for a stealth bomber. Germany was preparing to build one late in the war.

No. The Amerika-Bomber was a delta wing aircraft like the B-2, but not more.

 

[North King]

A missile defence system is extremely dangerous because it removes the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction - it would allow America to nuke any country with impunity.

Agreed.

We should also focus more on disarmament than on defense against these--If each country only had a few, then no one would dare launch because there is still the possiblity of MAD, and not much damage would be done if they were launched.

The arms race is over--get rid of the weapons so we don't ahve to spend billions on fancy defense systems.