SDI...Why is this such a sensitive issue?

[gjts00]

What's the big deal with the US devising a missile defense system?!?!? Admitedly, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the broad scheme of things in this particular issue...But, why does (most of) the rest of the world have such a big problem with the US instituting the best defense system against ICBMs available to ourselves???

 

[RedWolf]

GJTS,

As a die hard socialist, left winger and peacenik... I'd just like to admit that I have absolutely NO idea why my fellow idealists are so against the American SDI system.

It's not a nuclear or chemical weapon, it's not enslaving the third world, it's not being used to press American interests upon any other country...

It's used to destroy ICBM's that may or may not be raining down upon your country. Hell, it doesn't even KILL any living thing - except maybe any bird unlucky enough to get in the way of falling shrapnel.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

It all depends on what the SDI can achieve...if the system would be able to invalidate a nuclear arsenal such as that of China or Russia then American can nuke them and they can't retaliate...bye bye MAD.

If it can only take down the one or two missiles of rogue states, then ask wouldn't it be easier for briefcase nuclear devices to hit America and give a chance at avoiding relatiation...so no point in having the shield.

In essence most people are pissed off that it requires foreign countries allowing American bases to detect missiles in-bound for the USA and yet they may be out of the shield. It could remove MAD from the equation AND it is a hell of alot of money that could be used to help sort out present day problems.


SDI is just the Americans wanting to make themselves immune to outside attack...and I'm afraid that it won't help at all...it WON'T any time soon be able to cope with MIRVs and it WON't stop terrorist nuclear attacks which are unlikely to be by missile. Rogue States are covered by MAD and by the fact america can "GO IN" and eliminate such states if they ever thought there was that big a threat.

Plus alot of people fear that those with fears that their weapons will be invalidated after the shield is up will thus have a deadline for action.

 

[amadeus]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

 

[SunTzu]

Whoever thinks that we are using SDI for bad purposes or whatever, are paranoid and conspiracy theorists.
We're using it to protect ourselves from ICBM's from foreign countries. I don't think we would be the ones to launch ICBM's at another country unless its in a counter-attack.

 

[Hamlet]

Errrrrrrmmmmm, new arms race, anyone?

 

[Dogberry]

Kitten expressed it best. Plus it raises the spector that the US can threaten & be ( sometime in the future ) impervious to retalation. Imagine how much you would be inclined to "trust" another country, if the situation were reversed.

Also .. there is common agreement, by those in the know, that this shield is set up against China more than anybody else. This is likely to cause all Asian nuclear powers ( China, India, & Pakistan) to increase their nuclear arsenals.

Finally, the world in general likes to see treaties that limit arms & escalatory moves. I most often agree with them.

Dog

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

RedWolf - first of all let me say I am a fellow diehard left-winger so it's nice to know there is someone here who shares my views

The problems with the proposed missile system are numerous:

1) It may not work effectively (it hit only 2/3 test missiles)

2) It is EXTRAVAGANTLY expensive - hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars I think - we need the money elsewhere (I would spend it on either health, education, or reducing National debt)

3) If we are attacked in the future by a "rogue nation", the attack would most likely NOT be by a missile; it would be a chemical, biological, or small non-propelled nuclear device, or a kamikaze plane attack

4) Other powerful nations such as Russia, China, India, and others would be angered by this; we would be able to shoot missile at them but they would not effectively be able to shoot them at us. It may result in an arms race which may well turn into World War 3 which would almost certainly result in the destruction of the world

 

[BlueMonday]

Although I admire the idea of the SDI, pursuing it is pure foolishness. I am totally against it entirely on the basis that I don't think it will work. Our technological capabilities are not up to the task of taking down an ICBM.

Listen: It's all in the way an ICBM works -they have three stages. The first stage is where they are ignited and accelerate into the air. In the second stage they exit the atmosphere and just befroe they re-enter the atmosphere they release their nuclear warheads in a bullspread (some only two or three, others sixteen seperate warheads). In the third stage they fall on their target.

Once an ICBM releases it's warheads, the game is up. The nukes would fall on whatever the target is and even the best radar systems wouldn't be able to track and destroy objects that the size of a nuclear warhead. The only time another missile would even have a chance at destroying the nuclear threat would be before it releases its payload. So that means you have to strike it either in the first stage or the beginning of the second stage.

OK, so we have to get it in the first half of it's flight. Now imagine the logistics of launching a missile and striking the ICBM. If you were launching from the continental U.S. you'd need another missile that could travel as fast as the ICBM -about 16,000 MPH- in order to stirke it at the half-way point. You'd also need a missile capable of reaching subspace. That would mean you'd need a missile of comparable size to ICBMs like the minuteman in order to get the neccesary speed and altitude. At that size, the missile would have too much intertia to be maneuverable enough to take down the enemy ICBM. Even it were quickwitted enough to get in the right place at the right time, imagine the physics of one missile traveling at least 16,000mph trying to strike another missile traveling at least 16,000mph. Not only that, but you'd be trying to manuever in subspace, which has conditions not optimal for maneuvering. In space, things generally travel in straight lines (well, actually curved lines, but straight relatively).

The "Missile Defense Shield" is a completly useless waste of hundreds of billions of dollars. That's not even to comment on the fact that the threat has passed. ICBMs were created for one thing and one thing only: a war that never came -USSR vs. USA. Russia doesn't want to nuke us, they never did. We were both simply practicing mutually assured destruction as a deterent for the other not to strike. To what purpose would a missile defense shield serve today? The days of the ICBM have come to a standstill, no country with the technical knowhow to build one is stupid enough to use one. (That is not to say a certan camel-f***er in Iraq won't, but that is a different situation altogether).

 

[drake]

Should use all the money getting rid of all nuclear weapons....no nukes = no need for sdi

But this paranoid world of ours would never allow it.
No nation would agree to destroying all nukes, because they wouldnt believe the other nations would destroy all of thiers. And so on and so forth. Vicious circle.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

No reason to fully disarm EVER:

1. it means your enemy can never defeat your nation without being annihilated.
2. thus it removes the need for such large conventional forces as in a world war or all-or nothing situation you could employ the nuke.
3. MAD is logical.


SDI is primarily vs the threat of a rogue state of terrorist launch of an ICBM...I think that it is a highly expensive and risky venture (it may not ever be effective) and does threaten the security of MAD.

If America invests more into her intelligence services and intervenes against dangerous rogue states by eliminating their leadership and militaries as appropriate they can better safeguard themselves.

(p.s my previous post made these points as well, just people didn't seem to pick up my points)

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
No reason to fully disarm EVER:

1. it means your enemy can never defeat your nation without being annihilated.
2. thus it removes the need for such large conventional forces as in a world war or all-or nothing situation you could employ the nuke.
3. MAD is logical.


)

hmmm...

Am I the only one who has no idea what you're talking about?

 

[amadeus]

You really don't understand, do you?

Peace is brought by strength, not by weakness.

 

[gjts00]

Well, I've learned quite a bit from this thread. I thank you all for your input. Based on the information is this thread, I am now opposed to such a course of action. I guess it all goes back to the old addage....The best defense is a good offense.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
No reason to fully disarm EVER:

1. it means your enemy can never defeat your nation without being annihilated.

You and great many other people hold this ridiculous notion that nukes are some sort of invulnerable superweapon. They're not the Death Star, they're just smarter than average rocks that weigh a LOT. A nuke can be neutralized in any number of ways, especially while it is sitting on the ground.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
2. thus it removes the need for such large conventional forces as in a world war or all-or nothing situation you could employ the nuke.

In an all-or-nothing situation, your nukes will be falling on your own soil. Or are you going to wage a coward's war against your enemy's civilian population while his army pounds down your gates? Either way you are screwed, and chances are, your enemy will win anyway.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
3. MAD is logical.

A statement so terrifying in its diametrically opposed position to sanity that I cannot adequately reply.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
SDI is primarily vs the threat of a rogue state of terrorist launch of an ICBM...I think that it is a highly expensive and risky venture (it may not ever be effective) and does threaten the security of MAD.

What sort of madman calls Mutually Assured Destruction safety? Furthermore, SDI is primarily for defending a nation against ICBMs. Whether there are five or fifty inbounds, that is its purpose, and it certainly doesn't care what nation fired them. Rogue states are more likely to use terrorists to deliver their warheads.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
If America invests more into her intelligence services and intervenes against dangerous rogue states by eliminating their leadership and militaries as appropriate they can better safeguard themselves.

So, you're saying it is okay to ignore international laws and treaties, and directly attack governments and their leaders? Are you aware that this is the kind of attitude that can send a missile fleet skyward in the first place?

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
(p.s my previous post made these points as well, just people didn't seem to pick up my points)

Your previous post dealt at length with why you thought the US should not have SDI. It said nothing about it being appropriate to not respect the rights of sovreign nations when they threaten what you consider to be stability.

I'm sorry, but I simply must disagree with you on this. Government exists to protect its citizens from foreign agression, nothing more, nothing less. To ignore that duty is to fail to be a worthwhile government. IF the US can provide its citizens with a working missile defense, then as long as those missiles exist, it has the duty to create and sustain that defense, period.

Kitten, I seem to recall you being young. Well, I'm not. I've seen the real world, and it is not a place where people do things that make sense. People do not work for the common good, unless they're mentally challenged and don't know any better, or they hold fast to beliefs that require them to do so. Such people are the exception, not the rule.

People kill each other over the stupidest things. People rely on MAD, rather than making peace, because that is easier. People embrace communism. People do some damn stupid things, and not by accident either. Most of them march arm in arm like lemmings toward the Cliffs of Willful Ignorance, singing a battle hymn as they go. Wishing it away or pretending it isn't true won't make it so.

Enjoy your idealism while it lasts, but don't make the mistake of thinking you can substitute it for facts in a real world discussion.

 

[Dogberry]

Fearless Leader... given your demonstrable ignorance of politics, current affairs, & the world as it exists in general .. I find it "ironic" that you weigh into Kitten for his supposed ignorance of the "real World". Then again I suppose this is another "theological" issue with you..not one of reason and/or logic.

I too would like to see the iron terror of MAD broken, but I simply do not believe the "silver bullet" of SDI is the way to do it. IMO the road to this is much tougher & requires cooperation & slowly building trust among & between nations.

Further ... altho "Peace through Strength" is a useful notion..it does not always apply as this was the watchword of most of the European Nations in 1914.

Also the Romans used to have a proverb " If you want peace, prepare for war." ( Lefty could probably put it into Latin ) Yet, the history of Rome is certainly not lacking in wars of all sorts.

The simple truth is that if you wish for peace, you have to go deeper & look harder than most people assume. Simple slogans or "theological" standpoints are just not up to the task.

Dog

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Dogberry
Fearless Leader... given your demonstrable ignorance of politics, current affairs, & the world as it exists in general .. I find it "ironic" that you weigh into Kitten for his supposed ignorance of the "real World". Then again I suppose this is another "theological" issue with you..not one of reason and/or logic.

Mrfle bibble noif pip? There's words coming out of your keyboard, but not one of them makes sense taken in context wth the others. I explain human nature to kitten, and you then, apparently for no better reason than to say something bad about me, open your mouth and jam your foot in to the balls. 'Demonstrable ignorance', eh? By whose standards? BY what standard of proof? Disagreeing with you? Hate to break it to you, Dawg, but a LOT of people disagree with you. Your say so is not the standard of proof in a debate, so out with the proof, bubby, or closed with the mouth.

Originally posted by Dogberry
I too would like to see the iron terror of MAD broken, but I simply do not believe the "silver bullet" of SDI is the way to do it. IMO the road to this is much tougher & requires cooperation & slowly building trust among & between nations.

Well, now that you bring it up... If a nation's destruction is not mutually assurred, can it not dictate peace on its own terms? Are you and the rest of the world mad because the good guys, or at least the best available, are going to win?
Yes, I will admit that the iminent activation and implementation of a working nuclear missile defense raises grim implications for those with missiles pointed at it. But, no, I do not feel the least bit bad about their situation. You'll have to remember, some of those missiles are pointed at ME.

Originally posted by Dogberry
Further ... altho "Peace through Strength" is a useful notion..it does not always apply as this was the watchword of most of the European Nations in 1914.

Also the Romans used to have a proverb " If you want peace, prepare for war." ( Lefty could probably put it into Latin ) Yet, the history of Rome is certainly not lacking in wars of all sorts.

The simple truth is that if you wish for peace, you have to go deeper & look harder than most people assume. Simple slogans or "theological" standpoints are just not up to the task.

Dog

It's no secret to most of CFC that you are diametricallly opposed to everything I say, and go out of your way to attack me. I really don't care, because most times, such as now, you only end up embarassing yourself. I would very much enjoy it if you would supply us all a quote of me quoting the Bible or saying 'God said SDI is good', or something equally silly. What? You can't? Why not? Oh yeah, because I never did. Gee, does that mean you are lying about me as usual? Do us all a favor and **** off *******.

A country with secure borders and a working NMD would be able to rapidly establish a hegemony. Anyone who doubts that is not looking at the facts.

 

[amadeus]

First, the concept of MAD (mutual assured destruction) is to have it so that the costs outweigh the benefits of invading a country or providing it with some kind of aid (whether to the government or insurgent).

Second, peace is brought through strength. Realistically, are you going to listen to someone who you *KNOW* you can defeat easily and get away with it? Probably not. I wouldn't.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Fearless Leader
"A nuke can be neutralized in any number of ways, especially while it is sitting on the ground. "

Nuclear missiles for the UK are mainly kept on-board nuclear submarines...these are very easy to safeguard and ensure we can retaliate even after a sneak attack.

If once the missile is launched it is easy to intercept then star wars would have been made a reality in the 1980s...


"In an all-or-nothing situation, your nukes will be falling on your own soil. Or are you going to wage a coward's war against your enemy's civilian population while his army pounds down your gates? Either way you are screwed, and chances are, your enemy will win anyway. "

If Russia had launched an invasion of Europe and Britain the French and British nuclear arsenal -even if America had stayed out- would have devastated the Russian homeland and any major concentrations of Russian military force. To launch a war in which you know your country will be ruined and that your attacking forces will be met with by nuclear armourments then there is no reason to fight. The implication is clear to even the most simple-minded baboon...you try and defeat us you'll suffer virtual annihilation, is what you are trying to gain from your attack WORTH THIS PRICE.

P.S I recommend you watch "Docter Strangelove"...or HELL even "Wargames"...

FL again
"Mrfle bibble noif pip? There's words coming out of your keyboard, but not one of them makes sense taken in context wth the others. I explain human nature to kitten, and you then, apparently for no better reason than to say something bad about me, open your mouth and jam your foot in to the balls. 'Demonstrable ignorance', eh? By whose standards? BY what standard of proof? Disagreeing with you? Hate to break it to you, Dawg, but a LOT of people disagree with you. Your say so is not the standard of proof in a debate, so out with the proof, bubby, or closed with the mouth."

EH????

Just to give a flavour of how FL argues:

"You can reject it until the cows come home. Won't change the fact that I'm right. It's not an opinion when it is true."

His opinion:

"Since the early 50s, this country has slid down the slippery slope of apathy and moral decay. It is small wonder that other fundamentalist nations despise us. We used to adhere to a moral code like they do now (albeit a much different one!), and we have abandoned it to all outward appearances. Small wonder then, that we are referred to as 'the Great Satan'. "



My response?

FL....moral decay? were people moral where you lived BEFORE you were born...

In the past we had slavery, patriarchy, toleration of racism, child-labour blah, blah, blah...when was the moral golden age?

Fundamentalist dogma is usually religious and religion is based upon nothing tangible and yet people ASSERT it with deep seated belief...crazy!

P.S the bible isn't accurate so

P.P.S Lets all smile and pretend we are happy

P.P.P.S for CS players "lets all camp and pretend we are happy"


HIS COMEBACK

"Moral decay. Ok, so you're saying that no moral decay has occurred because all the same things are happening now as then, but now its in the open because there is no social stigmata attached to these actions?

Um, are you aware that social stigmata stems from morality? That as the stigmatas are removed from the actions, morality gets weaker? Is English a second language for you? In short... "


Tune into sanity FM.
For those wanting more FL insanity read:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9679

 

[Dogberry]

Am I mistaken .. FL ? Is this what you envision as the best course for the world ?

As for your demonstrable ignorance of current events, politics.. etc. ; not too long ago I questioned you about a prominent Democratic Politician ( Bob Kerrey ) ...who happened to be very much in the news early this summer. Your answer revealed to me that your intake of information is limited & narrow to the extreme.

No.. I don't hate you FL. This might surprise you .. but I kinda like you. In the course of my life .. I have learned to rub shoulders with a wide variety of people & have found that they all have something to offer. I have to admit ..and I hope this doesn't get me banned for "trolling" ...I love pulling your tail occasionally just to hear you squawk.

To the SDI argument...two things are put forward for its rationale. There is the "rogue nation" argument, & then there is the less public nuclear hegemony argument. Which one would you like to see me demolish first ? Warning.. the last gets into the MAD based nuclear numbers game & is guarenteed to put everyone to sleep.


Dog

P.S. For such a "moral" guy...you sure do cuss a lot...lol.