Bush and Missile Defense

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,275
36,390
136
Us critics are living in the past.

Somehow his conviction doesn't make me feel any safer, what with only 5% of shipping containers being inspected at US ports, and his total lack of regard for our wide open borders (in a time of war no less). I've always thought a warhead, or materials to make one, would be easy to just hike across the Mexican border. It's certainly more cost effective and covert than a missile. I guess the war lobby doesn't believe our enemies can be pragmatic.
You'd think he'd jump at the chance to step up the effectiveness of the war of drugs, but I guess there just wouldn't be enough money throw to the aerospace industry that way. I can't wait till we boot this moron from office.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,037
33,056
136
I think a limited system would be a good thing to have. North Korea and Iran aren't trying to build missiles for space exploration.

It is impossible to protect the entire lengh of out borders with Mexico and Canada. Our coastlines are another concern. In such an attack is it likely that the materials used would be tracked to the source. The country that gets caught supplying nuclear materials or using a weapon in this manner would likely get an up close and personal demonstration of the US strategic nuclear forces.

IMO, the "War on Drugs" is the one of the dumbest things to be pushed on the American people in the last few decades. Some deluded fools actually still claim it can be won.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,275
36,390
136
I think a limited system would be a good thing to have. North Korea and Iran aren't trying to build missiles for space exploration

Agreed, but we already have the Patriot II system, and the Israeli Hawk System is even better from what I understand. I think this would fill the 'limited' capability which is prudent.

It is impossible to protect the entire lengh of out borders with Mexico and Canada. Our coastlines are another concern. In such an attack is it likely that the materials used would be tracked to the source. The country that gets caught supplying nuclear materials or using a weapon in this manner would likely get an up close and personal demonstration of the US strategic nuclear forces.

It's not impossible. I'd like to think a country with aims of exploring Mars could be able to secure it's own borders. There are a variety of methods available, many of which are already in use on a small scale (seismic sensors for instance). Canada is starting to develop an ROV based system which patrols their coastlines, why can't we get something similar in action? While I don't have the numbers on what something like this would cost, there's no doubt in my mind it would be cheaper than going to Mars, and could probably be done for less than they amount we've already sunk into the 'Star Wars' scene. I agree that there is no way to completely conceal state support for terror, but what we have to worry about are groups which have no country to retaliate against. It should go without saying these groups wouldn't have an ICBM to use. We know 'nukes in a briefcase' are possible, the Soviets made many of them.

IMO, the "War on Drugs" is the one of the dumbest things to be pushed on the American people in the last few decades. Some deluded fools actually still claim it can be won.

Again, I agree. Trying to prevent drugs flowing in from Mexico (and other places) with open borders is a joke. My point was you'd think those still deluded in thinking it's worthwhile (read: conservatives for the most part) would jump at the chance to "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak. As President Cheney himself likes to state so often, we're under attack. Too bad he can't act like it, and consider our borders as important as South Korea's.

We know there is a blackmarket for former Eastern block weaponry. We know we're at war, and there are many terrorist groups out there that woudl gladly give their own lives to strike a mortal blow to the US. We also know our borders are porous enough to permit thousands of illegals to flow into out country EVERYDAY. The likelihood of a bomb (nuclear, bio, dirty, what have you) been smuggled in across out open borders and coastlines is far more likely than some far off country suddenly being able to lob a missile at us from the other side of the globe. Add into it both NK and Iran know we have satellites and would see the act as it unfolded, I doubt they would act against us in a manner which would result in their countries being turned into the worlds largest radioactive parking lots.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: kage69
I think a limited system would be a good thing to have. North Korea and Iran aren't trying to build missiles for space exploration

Agreed, but we already have the Patriot II system, and the Israeli Hawk System is even better from what I understand. I think this would fill the 'limited' capability which is prudent.

These are not designed to destroy ICBMs.
 

thuper

Member
Jun 6, 2004
157
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Us critics are living in the past.

Somehow his conviction doesn't make me feel any safer, what with only 5% of shipping containers being inspected at US ports, and his total lack of regard for our wide open borders (in a time of war no less). I've always thought a warhead, or materials to make one, would be easy to just hike across the Mexican border. It's certainly more cost effective and covert than a missile. I guess the war lobby doesn't believe our enemies can be pragmatic.
You'd think he'd jump at the chance to step up the effectiveness of the war of drugs, but I guess there just wouldn't be enough money throw to the aerospace industry that way. I can't wait till we boot this moron from office.


I still can't believe that republicans were against raising the money to search more containers.
Experts determined inspecting 10% would be enough, and all we had to do was take about $5k from the average $88,000 tax cut to the rich. I guess we're okay though, as long as the rest of the world hates us.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
We coexisted with the Soviets for 40 years on the basis of MAD, and none of the current so-called threats could ever arrive at that level of deterrence. They'll never have a first strike capability, period, and they know it. So the quest for nukes becomes a regional issue for them, and also a deterrent against US aggression...

There was a time that the US could have argued that these countries are safe from our aggression, that we'd never do such a thing, but Iraq changed that for any other nation left spinning on the axis of evil... The Bush message is pretty much bend over or beef up, wimp... looks like they'd rather beef up...

So NMD is just another pork project, or, alternatively, preparation for Neocon dreams of world hegemony via military force. Hard to tell...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: thuper
Originally posted by: kage69
Us critics are living in the past.

Somehow his conviction doesn't make me feel any safer, what with only 5% of shipping containers being inspected at US ports, and his total lack of regard for our wide open borders (in a time of war no less). I've always thought a warhead, or materials to make one, would be easy to just hike across the Mexican border. It's certainly more cost effective and covert than a missile. I guess the war lobby doesn't believe our enemies can be pragmatic.
You'd think he'd jump at the chance to step up the effectiveness of the war of drugs, but I guess there just wouldn't be enough money throw to the aerospace industry that way. I can't wait till we boot this moron from office.


I still can't believe that republicans were against raising the money to search more containers.
Experts determined inspecting 10% would be enough, and all we had to do was take about $5k from the average $88,000 tax cut to the rich. I guess we're okay though, as long as the rest of the world hates us.


Just fund container inspections via port taxes. Problem solved.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,275
36,390
136
These are not designed to destroy ICBMs.

After looking into it, quite so. However, upping the ante in this regard wouldn't be a huge stretch. It's still all about intercepting a projectile in flight and doing enough damage to destroy or alter it's flight path. I'm sure the Patriot and Hawk systems can and would be used as a stepping stone to this system. Certainly seems more practical to me than the flying laser platform that has been touted by the Pentagon before. Regardless, an ICBM launch against the USA is still the least likely option of attack.

Just fund container inspections via port taxes. Problem solved.

While I'm sure it would, I'd expect the trade lobby to sink the attempt. Assuming that it could be instituted (and it worked by covering ALL containers coming into our ports) that only account for ports. What about the plethora of other entry options available to terrorists?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,037
33,056
136
Originally posted by: kage69
These are not designed to destroy ICBMs.

After looking into it, quite so. However, upping the ante in this regard wouldn't be a huge stretch. It's still all about intercepting a projectile in flight and doing enough damage to destroy or alter it's flight path. I'm sure the Patriot and Hawk systems can and would be used as a stepping stone to this system. Certainly seems more practical to me than the flying laser platform that has been touted by the Pentagon before. Regardless, an ICBM launch against the USA is still the least likely option of attack.

Just fund container inspections via port taxes. Problem solved.

While I'm sure it would, I'd expect the trade lobby to sink the attempt. Assuming that it could be instituted (and it worked by covering ALL containers coming into our ports) that only account for ports. What about the plethora of other entry options available to terrorists?

The ABL (airborne laser) has the virtue of destroying the missile early in the boot phase (when it is the most vulnerable), which means the payload will fall back onto the area it was launched from.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,275
36,390
136
The ABL (airborne laser) has the virtue of destroying the missile early in the boot phase (when it is the most vulnerable), which means the payload will fall back onto the area it was launched from.


Yeah, I know, I read the press release too. Problem is, there is A LOT stacked against the successful use of it. Not to mention it doesn't address the obvious problem we are faced with.