84% of people support a Missile Defense System...

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,561
14
81
In the msnbc.com poll. And I have to agree - those who think that these rogue countries aren't going to go ahead with thier missile programs regardless of what we do are a little niave. Now I know there is debate on what system is best, etc., but I think we need to be serious here and put up SOMETHING.
 

SuperGroove

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
3,347
1
0
Amen,

If you see past all the BS, you'll see that China, and other outraged countries, are upset that they have no shot at attacking other countries. Those imperialistic bastards. JUUUST KIDDING. The Star Wars defense initiated in the Reagan Era is a great idea. Too bad it's been so expensive though. America needs this badly. With two faced leaders like Kim Jong Il, what makes U.S. Citizens think that there is no need for a Anti Ballistic Missile Defense.

Now if only America could make industrial strength toilets....I'd be set.
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
The poll is a bit flawed. It assumes that it will work.

A more accurate question is:

Would you support a missile defense system that may not work, cost 60 billion dollars to build, and may trigger a world-wide nuclear arms race?

Why do you think 50 US Nobel Prize Laureates signed a letter to the President urgin him not to approve it?
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
The princial function of nuclear weapons has been for political persuasion, and not for militaristic aggression.

I tend to think that Russia & China are worried about further decline of their already limited abilities to politically influence the US, that they understand and appreciate all too well their need to utilize sabre rattling as a means of compensating for their respective economic and geo-political weekness.

Even more, they will loose the ability to threaten the US indirectly through third party client states--like N. Korea--while maintaining the illusion of plausible denials of their actual guiding involvement.

 

Doomer

Diamond Member
Dec 5, 1999
3,722
0
0
UG, such an intelligent post. How come you misspelled "weekness" :p
 

Fathom4

Golden Member
Feb 11, 2000
1,000
0
0
When I'm elected President, there will be a "Nuke" in the garage of every God fearing American.

No more going to work on Monday's when the weekend weather was lousy.

Hell forget Mondays, do away with them, add another Friday after Sunday.

3 day workweeks, 4 day weekends.

DSL in every household.

10% flat tax - NO EXCEPTIONS.

By God when I'm elected there's going to be some changes made!!

 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
Doomer;

Touche'. :Q

Perhaps due to a moment's weakness in concentration, I missed that spelleng error.

:)
 

DAM

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2000
6,102
1
76
actually the future of wars is not all out nuclear warfare, i honestly think that the future of war would be from within, attacks worst than ok city or the trade center, attacks of this magnitude can not be dealt with nuclear weapons....

hell, if you cant break in from outside, break out from the inside.



dam(ballistic)
 

The Wildcard

Platinum Member
Oct 31, 1999
2,743
0
0
What's funnier is that Russia wants the US to work with them to create a missle defense system that will protect russia, china and korea. HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA, don't these people understand that the reason why we want to create a missle defense system is protect ourselves from China and North Korea...not to mention Russia if they have a sudden turn of politics.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Sure, let's go spend 100 billion on a missile defence system that only hits half the time and is easily fooled by decoys, that gives us a false sense of security, and that an impressive group of scientists said is foolish. I don't mind paying the taxes to support a bunch of government cronies who work for the defense industry.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
As I understand it, developing such a system contravenes past arms control agreements. That in itself should be reason enough to not pursue it's developement. Add to that that rogue states are more likely to use non-ICBM delivery systems and Star Wars becomes useless even if it acheives a 100% ICBM intercept success rate.

I'm not American, so if you want your tax dollars going into that blackhole, that's your choice.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
China won't nuke us. Nuclear weapons are just used at pawns. They realize, just as any other country with nuclear weapons capability realizes, that if they fire at us, they are gonna get fired back at. Everyone gets 86'd

Little sh!thole countries like Iraq and North Korean could never finance the development of any nuclear weapon that could reach american soil. North Korea can howerver threaten their neighbors, such as South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan. The US has a strategic and enormous finacial stake in that region. I do think we need to have some sort of anti-missle defense.

I am more worried about Iran, India, Pakistan and what they hell they are up to
 

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,561
14
81
I guess the other idea is what I think will work. The "Theater Defence System." I just don't think it is a bad idea to be on the cautious side - lets build one, just one that works.
 

yata

Senior member
Jun 2, 2000
746
0
0
I'm all for, how much? 60 billion dollars of fireworks and sometimes ground explosions for the misses. Yeah yeah!
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Theater missile defence is for local areas like japan, taiwan. And while I surely appreciate all the nice electronics they are sending us, I am don't want to pay taxes to protect them from some non-existing or very remote threat.
It's almost a 100 billion, that's like $1000 for every US taxpayer.
For some reason when I ask myself "New laptop or missile defence?" or "Health insurance or missile defence?" Missile defence always looses, even if it did work.
 

yata

Senior member
Jun 2, 2000
746
0
0
I think I know why people are still rooting for this thing, even though enough research prove it not cost-effective or possibly useless.

It's kinda like paying for a sense of security, psychologically. Oooo, we've got this defense system so I feel safer. To give this feeling to the American public. Perhaps then it's justified.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
The Chinese more or less walk into our nuclear research labs, take what they will and leave...and we're worried about setting up a country-wide missle defense system? It's security in the wrong spot, methinks.

The attacks this system is designed to prevent are single threats fired from rogue nations, right? As someone already pointed out, rogue nations aren't likely to be able to hit us with any ballistic missiles for quite some time, if ever.

If a country like China wants to wage nuclear war, we're screwed (and so are they). If they want to set off a nuclear explosion on US soil in the name of terrorism, they'll do it buy smuggling in a small device. A missle shield will not stop a ground threat.

Anyway, the government should just hire M$'s PR firm. Have 'em spin it like this "we already have a defense system, it works great and it's already paid for!". Then the sense of security gets out there and no money is wasted (except to pay off M$'s PR dudes...hmmm that could get expensive).

I stop now due to rambling...
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
And when Pentagon quotes a defense project, they always end up spending 3 times as much.
 

SuperGroove

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
3,347
1
0
You don't think the money is well spent when they do use it?

Uh...

No one touches us because of how advanced we are military(ily?) wise. Our defense budget shrinks because of hippies like some of you are! Top Gun has fallen by the wayside, therefore stupid claims like the Israeli's beating the Americans 250-1 in an air excercise are actually plausible. Then people coming out saying it's the government's fault. Ignorant bastards. However, in the Cold War Era, between Eisenhower's and Kenney's administration, we spent money on things we shouldn't have. Post-Reagan War Era, we have proven technology that continues to come out. No more duds like the F-89D Scorpion.

I'm going into the military...you better support me! I need on-base porn to keep defending the country:D Uh...not that soldiers have porn sent to them...

Paul
 

Vikaden

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2000
1,302
0
0
I read about this in popular science, they said it would be fully implemented by 2011, I for one think it is a great idea, nothing better than blowing up a nuke over the aggresor country after they think it is flying toward the USA
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Israel has an exceptional airforce and they take no prisoners close-in. Our boys are still highly trained but funding is always in a downspiral.

BTW, whatever happened to the F-22 program? Last I heard some policy decision effectively killed the F-22 but I never heard the details. IMO the F-22 isn't *that* expensive and looks to be worth mass producing. Especially with those pesky Europeans and their Eurofighters/Gripens (j/k guys!). :)
 

SuperGroove

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
3,347
1
0
Yes, Israel DOES have an exceptional air force. Very exceptional. That's not to say our men and women are bad, they're very good, but there isn't good enough funding to train every pilot to the quality of the veterans of the IAF.

Paul
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I think it's really cool that we will soon enter an age when nuclear miscles will be delivered by webvan to their targets. Small well financed groups will build nanobots that self replicate and eat flesh. Genetically engineered viruses will kill billions with minimal investment. We have one real enemy and we see him every day in the mirror. We are insane, and unless we begin mass treatment, we will go extinct. We hate ourselves, don't know it, and don't want to know it. Rather than face that, we would see everyone die.