A good solution to solve the nuke problem?

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster
In exchange for their nukes the U.S will sell them new tanks and weapon systems. For countries like Iran the U.S/Europe can sell them commercial airplanes which they are in great need of.

In exchange they must allow inspectors to come in. Get rid of all their nuclear materials.

Wouldn't this be better than having nukes? Of course I doubt it could work because Russia sells to anyone who wants to buy. Iran is going to buy $8 billion of Russian arms next year and NK will probably be looking for an upgrade soon. This is saying that Russian arms are far less superior than that of the U.S.

Obviously my solution has flaws as I have never heard it before. What are they?

iran has already said it won't give up their enrichment program for anything...

Yeah, but when Kerry gets in office, he'll wave his magic wand and they'll change their minds. Just like the Germans who say they won't send troops to Iraq. I know all this because I read his "plan."

LOL

 

[ReiAyanami]

They say shooting down a missile with another missile is like shooting down a bullet with another bullet. So why not work on that first? Imagine if you could destroy all incoming bullets, our Imperial soldiers would be invincible.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Double Incorrent Backfire!! You can build a missile defence shield but it will probably only have 75%-90% accuracy (no good at all when the enemy is firing thousands of warheads at you).

So chances are we'll have to build 2 seperate missile defence shields and it will cost $400 billion total.

Now as for protecting against a single missile or two from a rogue nation like NK, unfortunately it also doesn't work. Because to have a 75% working missile shield and you shoot down both incoming Kim Jong Phallus Projectiles, then you have no capability to strike back with nukes. (no politician would allow wiping out millions of civilians if the threat has been eliminated beforehand)

Hence we would have to launch targeted strikes followed by a land invasion (against a ground army of 1 million North Korean Soldiers). Once we are weakened, China launches several thousand warheads against us destroying America (even if our shield works 99.9% thats enuff to destroy every major city).

Hence it is better to simply not have a missile shield and invest that $200-$400 billion in a colony on Mars for when World War III wipes out all civilization on Earth.

Your argument is inherently flawed because you based your entire argument on a number that you fabricated to suit your position.

Plus, if we go to Mars, we can still get hit by an ICBM, as most of them leave the atmosphere anyway, so why not offer a constructive suggestion rather than running away from an inescapable problem?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

Double Incorrent Backfire!! You can build a missile defence shield but it will probably only have 75%-90% accuracy (no good at all when the enemy is firing thousands of warheads at you).

So chances are we'll have to build 2 seperate missile defence shields and it will cost $400 billion total.

Now as for protecting against a single missile or two from a rogue nation like NK, unfortunately it also doesn't work. Because to have a 75% working missile shield and you shoot down both incoming Kim Jong Phallus Projectiles, then you have no capability to strike back with nukes. (no politician would allow wiping out millions of civilians if the threat has been eliminated beforehand)

Hence we would have to launch targeted strikes followed by a land invasion (against a ground army of 1 million North Korean Soldiers). Once we are weakened, China launches several thousand warheads against us destroying America (even if our shield works 99.9% thats enuff to destroy every major city).

Hence it is better to simply not have a missile shield and invest that $200-$400 billion in a colony on Mars for when World War III wipes out all civilization on Earth.

Incorrect.

Your numbers are ficticious. Of course we will probably never have a system that is 100% accurate. And as for retaliation, we will have fired our nukes before theirs are wiped out, not after.

If I sound smug about the issue, it's because I can.

Number of Missile Defense Systems worked on:

ReiAyanami: 0 (I'm guessing)
cKGunslinger: 1