Missle Shield Program

[BasketCase]

Who is going to hit us with an ICBM? And we could stop alot more of those needles if we pumped the money into intelligence which seems to be lacking as of recently. I'm usually all for military research but this is such an insane amount of money to counter a threat that is barerly even there. I would almost support it if it meant that the US would also get rid off all their nukes since there would be no more use for them, but that would never happen.

Who could hit us with an ICBM?

Russia could. China could. Israel could. Pakistan could.

Remember all those Civ3 games we've played, where a friendly neighbor suddenly turns and declares war on you? News flash: that has been happening in the real world for as long as we've had recorded history. Russia may once again become an enemy to us. China already is; they could become worse. Israel could suffer a revolution and a radical government could turn hostile to us for our "failure to support our ally, Israel". Pakistan is a Muslim nation, and y'all know there's no love there.

And if the United States got rid of all of its nukes? Then everyone else would STILL have a use for them. India could use its nukes to bomb Pakistan. Pakistan could still use its nukes to bomb India. The world is a lot larger than just the United States and "everybody else" (this is an American who just said that, by the way; there are some of us who do have a grain of modesty about our role in the world ).

There is only one thing that will cause the world to give up nuclear weapons, and that is the discovery of something even more destructive.

 

[Benderino]

Why would people oppose a missle defense system?

It costs way too much than its use. Our future enemies won't be launching nukes at us. They'll be coming in and blowing one up via a suitcase or something. Even if they did launch one at us, who's to say that spending a trillion dollars on this thing will actually make it work? What if it fails?

 

[Hakim]

@Benderino: that sounds more like the threats of todays enemies, which the shield is not supposed to address.

2/3 chance to stop an incoming missile is not very good, if the missile makes it through you'll stand there with 8 million dead and a shining new $$$ missile shield.

However: 2/3 of 10, 100 or 1000 missiles will, to put it mildly, make up for the costs of the shield.

 

[FriendlyFire]

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

Why the hell dose the US still keep 10,640 nukes for ???
Hugely wasteful.

 

[Samson]

Is not the missile defence system banned by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Surely invalidating this removes the USA's best diplomatic tool in presuading other countries to limit their nuclear programs?

 

[vonork]

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

Why the hell dose the US still keep 10,640 nukes for ???
Hugely wasteful.

Becouse the arsenal of a sub(belive 100 warheads) only can take out most of the military instaltions and population centers the west of the Urals(and around) killing something around 50 million russians in an attack.

So the 10,540 that are left are needed to do something...

 

[stratego]

I support the missle shields program, because soon or later some one is going to build it. Although I don't know how it would work. Maybe we can designate a certain desert as a bomb destination. If an ICBM is launched, we'll divert the bomb to the desert.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm still on the fence on this one. What no one has adequately answered is why North Korea would launch an ICBM at the US which would be a giant sign pointing back to NK saying "obliterate this nation", when they could take that same nuclear warhead, put it on a cargo ship (or even a fishing trawler) and sail it into a US port thus having plausible deniability and (given NK technological prowess) a higher probability of hitting the intended target.

However, I rarely oppose scientific and engineering advancement no matter what the ultimate goal, and if it is a defensive goal so much the better.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Is not the missile defence system banned by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Surely invalidating this removes the USA's best diplomatic tool in presuading other countries to limit their nuclear programs?

Your thinking of the:

Test-ban treaty
Outer Space Treaty
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty

US is violating these treaties by developing NMD. By doing so its has had negative consequnces. We wont know whether its for the better or worse if the US dose develope NMD

 

[betazed]

Right wingers at this board typically do a very poor job of defending their position. Can it be because they are right wing not because of rational thought and objective choice but because of indoctrination? I wonder.

In any case the missile defense shield can be supported in many ways. Here is one.

However, I rarely oppose scientific and engineering advancement no matter what the ultimate goal, and if it is a defensive goal so much the better.

Correct. You can say that the whatever the ultimate goal is, a critical spin off from this effort will be tremendous boosts in lots of related technology. If you are against that then by the same logic you should also have been against Manhattan project and then where would we be?

However, here lies the fallacy in Igloo's logic. I would whole heartedly support the program if the intention of the program was to gain technology and capability to build an defense shield and that was the primary motivation (as was Manhattan project - a goverment program that was dedicated to technological achievement, one which Oppenheimer said was a "sweet problem".). However, in this case the primary motivation seems to be corporate pork. First, we have not proven that it works. If the money being spent was spent on R&D then I can understand. But it is being spent on implementation of questionable devices. Second, the backers on the implementation stand to gain from the implementation. So pardon me if I am skeptical of their test results (and I am not the only one). What about some independant tests? Thirdly, where are the real geniuses of this country working on it? Manhattan project (then largely secret) was worked on by the best brains at that time. That gives me confidence that they are onto something. Can you show me one such scientific figure who backs the missile defense shield? In fact most scientists are against it.

But, that is not all that is for the missile shield project. There are other arguments too. I will let the right wingers figure it out.

 

[Hakim]

Can you show me one such scientific figure who backs the missile defense shield? In fact most scientists are against it.

Most scientists does not support any kind of military projects.

 

[betazed]

Most scientists does not support any kind of military projects.

You are wrong there. If there was a weapons project then it was the Manhattan project. It had nothing but the best possible scientists of that time, and they all whole-heartedly supported it (at least till they actually saw what it did).

Edward Teller was an eminent scientist and he is for all practical purposes the father of the H-Bomb.

John Von Neumann was not only in favor of developing the H-Bomb he was in favor of a first strike (after it had been developed) against the then communist Soviet Union. {Goes to show that scientists are not always the pacifist pinkos that the right makes them out to be.}

 

[Samson]

You are wrong there. If there was a weapons project then it was the Manhattan project. It had nothing but the best possible scientists of that time, and they all whole-heartedly supported it (at least till they actually saw what it did).

Edward Teller was an eminent scientist and he is for all practical purposes the father of the H-Bomb.

John Von Neumann was not only in favor of developing the H-Bomb he was in favor of a first strike (after it had been developed) against the then communist Soviet Union. {Goes to show that scientists are not always the pacifist pinkos that the right makes them out to be.}

I shall disagree with you. The quoted phrase was in the pressent tence. I think the Manhattan project opened a lot of peoples eyes to the responsability people, and especially scientists, have to have about hteir work. I know quite a few, and none would consider working on weapon projects. I know 2 who have left jobs seriously hurting their careers when asks to do reaserch that they were not happy about. I do not belive scientists are particularly special in this case, most people would not like to help develop weapons. Unfortunatly you do not need that many people to develop the cappability to kill a whole load of othe people

 

[Tassadar]

"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,'" Bush said.
---------------------
Why would people oppose a missle defense system?


Because if i am a tyran and i want to blackmail America with nucular bomb, i wont use an ICBM as the vector.

What i will do is to transport it by boat to south america, then by little plane over the mexican border ( in separate part if necasary) to the St-andreas break area, close to silicon valley IIRC. Then settle the countdown for the west coast anniilation. You dont even know where it came from. 1 nucular bomb and USA is on his knew. Another one on the est coast to create a tsunami and their you go to the caneva.

BTW, i agree with all Betazed point.

 

[betazed]

I shall disagree with you. The quoted phrase was in the pressent tence. I think the Manhattan project opened a lot of peoples eyes to the responsability people, and especially scientists, have to have about hteir work. I know quite a few, and none would consider working on weapon projects. I know 2 who have left jobs seriously hurting their careers when asks to do reaserch that they were not happy about. I do not belive scientists are particularly special in this case, most people would not like to help develop weapons. Unfortunatly you do not need that many people to develop the cappability to kill a whole load of othe people

You have got a point there. Now, that I think of it I cannot think of a single current eminent scientist who is for the missile defense shield or for any major weapons project.

 

[Benderino]

Is not the missile defence system banned by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Surely invalidating this removes the USA's best diplomatic tool in presuading other countries to limit their nuclear programs?

Bush got us out of that treaty back in 2001 or 2002, IIRC.

 

[shadowdude]

It costs way too much than its use. Our future enemies won't be launching nukes at us. They'll be coming in and blowing one up via a suitcase or something. Even if they did launch one at us, who's to say that spending a trillion dollars on this thing will actually make it work? What if it fails?

Its not to prevent terrorism-its to prevent rogue nations like North Korea and Iran from launching nukes at us. There are also tests to find its accuracy.

 

[Benderino]

They ain't gonna do that..."you're crazy".

 

[shadowdude]

And may I ask how you know that?

 

[Benderino]

Because it doesn't make sense. Why would anyone doom themselves/their own people by launching a nuke at us?