Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missle defense systems"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Drift3r
That missile defense program will stop then next 9/11 from happening again. /sarcasm off

QFT!

You have to be a complete moron to support missile defense. Terrorists can't afford & don't need ICMB's.

That must be why Iran and rogue nations like it are building exactly that.

No, they are not. Iran does not, and will not have any missile that can hit the US. You do understand what an ICBM is, right? See my first sentence.

No one is crazy enough to send a missile at the US. That would just invite obliteration (to borrow a term from Hillary). The real threat comes from terrorism, which requires a totally different set of tools. It is easier to smuggle a weapon into the US.

Again, ABM counters a threat that doesn't exist.

You do realise the same thing you are arguing against is what gives you the ability to say that, right?

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: herm0016
you all think the military only kills people.
when in fact the us military is the largest humanitarian org. in the word. they send troops and hospitals ( at least try) to places like myanmar, and the tsunami ravaged areas of the pacific, they drop supplies to hundreds of countries that need them, they protect you and i from many things, the research they conduct has led to things like microwaves and carbon fiber and food that you can keep in you cubord for long periods of time. they conduct research in to everything you can think of. the internet? not without the DoD first. they fund projects on hybrid cars and medical robotics too. the fact that we have a presence in so many countries around the world is important too, keeping their citizens from being killed by their leading parties or religious crazies.

Great.. We spend billions if not trillions keeping are humongous fleet of aircraft carriers and spending on the airforce how much for one of those b52 or latest and greatest F16?

Yes were spending 90% for killing...

I'm sure glade we can give up 10 or so percent to send lanterns, MRE's and tents to china.


Don't get me wrong... that's great that we can burn up are outdated surplus and ship it to needy and disaster struck countries... But, lets have a little reality check and see really how much goes into 'KILLING'...

No on your point about.............. Religious Crazies... Hmmm... I'd hate to ask what religion you are... but, we got enough of that bullshit going on in our own backyards... I'm all for spending money on the national guard to keep me safe from them too!

:p

yea, i forgot.. the Christians, those people that have morals and care about others, the people that are right now building most of the new houses in places like New Orleans, Bulxi, and China, the people that feed and shelter millions of homeless around the world, like the salvation army, habitat for humanity, etc...etc.. they are all evil!!! evil i tell you! how dare they help people, stand up for what they believe in. how dare they take part in the political process. they are wrong! you are right! no other opinion can be voiced! :confused:


btw:
we have not built a new b52 sense 1962, that aircraft has a service life of 100 years.
the new f35 and its variants do cost more per unit than the f-16 ( a 30 year old design shared with something like 20 other countries) but will allow the retirement of other designs to streamline our defense systems. we will only need to have parts and mechanics trained for the f-35 instead of 4 or 5 different units, this in the long run will save us money.
and 11 is such a huge fleet of active carriers, wonder why that stupid congress recommends we build 8 more? :roll:

edit: you should try the internet, i here there is lots of info out there, do your homework!
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
The problem is, that most missile system hit 1 missile at a time. Or 2 if we're lucky. Not take that missile and multiply that by the 12 warheads that its about to deploy. At that point, might as well start shooting with small arms fire.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Drift3r
That missile defense program will stop then next 9/11 from happening again. /sarcasm off

QFT!

You have to be a complete moron to support missile defense. Terrorists can't afford & don't need ICMB's.

That must be why Iran and rogue nations like it are building exactly that.

No, they are not. Iran does not, and will not have any missile that can hit the US. You do understand what an ICBM is, right? See my first sentence.

No one is crazy enough to send a missile at the US. That would just invite obliteration (to borrow a term from Hillary). The real threat comes from terrorism, which requires a totally different set of tools. It is easier to smuggle a weapon into the US.

Again, ABM counters a threat that doesn't exist.

You do realise the same thing you are arguing against is what gives you the ability to say that, right?

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:

You can argue that because we put in the funding for us to R&D it. Had we not spent so much on military we would not be able to.

I would rather spend the R&D costs and not need the system than not spend it and need it. The federal government is there for that very reason.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
Originally posted by: preslove

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:

so... spending on missile defense was(is) bad... but you cite norad? seems like norad is the nerve center for all space based weapons and missile defense. huh..... seems like you are the one calling the kettle pot. oh, and norad can not withstand a direct hit of more than something like 10 megatons ( could be way off, but there is a limit). so its not invincible, the fact that we know where it is says there is another, better norad somewhere else. :)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: preslove

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:

so... spending on missile defense was(is) bad... but you cite norad? seems like norad is the nerve center for all space based weapons and missile defense. huh..... seems like you are the one calling the kettle pot. oh, and norad can not withstand a direct hit of more than something like 10 megatons ( could be way off, but there is a limit). so its not invincible, the fact that we know where it is says there is another, better norad somewhere else. :)

I really don't think you guys understand the difficulties in an NMD system and why they are unlikely to be solved. Once you do, you will see why spending more on NMD is probably not a good use of our resources. If you want a stronger defense, you should also support scrapping NMD in order to spend the money elsewhere where it is more likely to protect America and its interests.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Drift3r
That missile defense program will stop then next 9/11 from happening again. /sarcasm off

QFT!

You have to be a complete moron to support missile defense. Terrorists can't afford & don't need ICMB's.

That must be why Iran and rogue nations like it are building exactly that.

No, they are not. Iran does not, and will not have any missile that can hit the US. You do understand what an ICBM is, right? See my first sentence.

No one is crazy enough to send a missile at the US. That would just invite obliteration (to borrow a term from Hillary). The real threat comes from terrorism, which requires a totally different set of tools. It is easier to smuggle a weapon into the US.

Again, ABM counters a threat that doesn't exist.

You do realise the same thing you are arguing against is what gives you the ability to say that, right?

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:

You can argue that because we put in the funding for us to R&D it. Had we not spent so much on military we would not be able to.

I would rather spend the R&D costs and not need the system than not spend it and need it. The federal government is there for that very reason.

Your screen name is pretty accurate...

So, it is better to waste our finite resources on Missile Defense, rather than putting them to better use, such as securing our ports and tracking down fissile material?

Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?

Missile defense!!!!!

:roll:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...

I italicized the correct word for you...
 

Carbo

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2000
5,248
7
81
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...

I italicized the correct word for you...

Unlike you, I don't wish to gamble with hundreds of thousands of real lives... so, I prefer that we cover all of the bases.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
My #1 concern with this system is that it's really a weapon system for space-based weapons for use on land targets, giving one nation, even the best nation and my nation, yet further dominance. No, I don't trust a space-based weapon that can completely dominate anywhere on the earth in the hands of GWB or future presidents not to abuse it.

In the past when the bar on lost corporate profits and such had to be high enough to justify an invasion, now the bar would be very low. Negotiations would be between one armed man and one unarmed man even more than now.

Having said that, if I really thought that it would not result in any weapon, and that it could divert funds from the bloated military we now have and discourage aggression, I could see allowing those funds to be spent, though they'd be better spent on debt reduction (in theory, tax cuts, but our debt is huge before that), and domestic spending.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

Why do people keep up bringing OJ in Obama threads...

...

:roll:

(psssst, even if you aren't racist, which isn't very likely, it makes you come off as one)


Text

Washington, DC ? Today, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law.

?If terrorists get their hands on a nuclear weapon or the essential material to make one, they could cause catastrophic damage to our homeland,? said Senator Obama. ?It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands. The comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan required by this provision is an important step in that effort.?

?The greatest threat to our national security is the possible detonation of a nuclear weapon. Even the use of a radiological device would be devastating,? Schiff said. ?Yet our national security policy does not reflect the urgency of dealing with this danger. We need a comprehensive effort to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, and this measure is a strong step in the right direction. I thank Senator Obama for his work on this important provision.?

The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision requires the President to develop a strategy that will:

* ensure that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 against the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose;

* ensure adequate accounting and security for such materials on an ongoing basis thereafter;

* include a plan for expanding the financial support and other assistance provided by other countries, particularly Russia, the European Union and its member states, China and Japan, for the purposes of securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material worldwide; and

* outline the progress in and impediments to securing an agreement from all countries that possess nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards, consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...

I italicized the correct word for you...

Unlike you, I don't wish to gamble with hundreds of thousands of real lives... so, I prefer that we cover all of the bases.

Please explain a likely threat that missile defense will counter.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...

But of course since we have limited resources you put your resources towards the most likely attack vectors first, which of course we aren't doing. We are instead spending this money on one of the least likely avenues of attack, and we're spending billions. It's not just a bad idea politically, it's a stupid allocation of our funds.
 

Carbo

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2000
5,248
7
81
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

Why do people keep up bringing OJ in Obama threads...

...

:roll:

(psssst, even if you aren't racist, which isn't very likely, it makes you come off as one)
Classic and on que. The moment someone criticizes Hussein Obama they are immediately labeled a racist. Way to play that card. I imagine it will only get worse as the campaign season wears on.

 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Drift3r
That missile defense program will stop then next 9/11 from happening again. /sarcasm off

QFT!

You have to be a complete moron to support missile defense. Terrorists can't afford & don't need ICMB's.

That must be why Iran and rogue nations like it are building exactly that.

No, they are not. Iran does not, and will not have any missile that can hit the US. You do understand what an ICBM is, right? See my first sentence.

No one is crazy enough to send a missile at the US. That would just invite obliteration (to borrow a term from Hillary). The real threat comes from terrorism, which requires a totally different set of tools. It is easier to smuggle a weapon into the US.

Again, ABM counters a threat that doesn't exist.

You do realise the same thing you are arguing against is what gives you the ability to say that, right?

No.

The reason I can argue that is because NORAD is under a freaking mountain, and because we have Ohio-class submarines.

The US could be effectively destroyed by a preemtive nuclear attack by russia or china & we could still retaliate with enough firepower to "obliterate (thanks hillary)" them.

This is why the term is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is insane to start a conventional nuclear war. MAD is what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in anger since Nagasaki, not missile defense :roll:

You can argue that because we put in the funding for us to R&D it. Had we not spent so much on military we would not be able to.

I would rather spend the R&D costs and not need the system than not spend it and need it. The federal government is there for that very reason.

Your screen name is pretty accurate...

So, it is better to waste our finite resources on Missile Defense, rather than putting them to better use, such as securing our ports and tracking down fissile material?

Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?

Missile defense!!!!!

:roll:

Where the fuck did I say anything about terrorists? One minute you're defending your position by saying an attack by Russia or China (these are countries that can attack us, not terrorists) would result in MAD, the next you are arguing that it would be useless against terrorists. Do you know what the hell you are even talking about?

And that makes 5 for the SN.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

Why do people keep up bringing OJ in Obama threads...

...

:roll:

(psssst, even if you aren't racist, which isn't very likely, it makes you come off as one)
Classic and on que. The moment someone criticizes Hussein Obama they are immediately labeled a racist. Way to play that card. I imagine it will only get worse as the campaign season wears on.

Comparing him to OJ is criticism? lol

Using his middle name is classy, too.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


Where the fuck did I say anything about terrorists? One minute you're defending your position by saying an attack by Russia or China (these are countries that can attack us, not terrorists) would result in MAD, the next you are arguing that it would be useless against terrorists. Do you know what the hell you are even talking about?

And that makes 5 for the SN.

Let me try to put this as simply as possible so you can understand.

1. Missile defense is not the reason why we've avoided nuclear conflict with Russia. MAD is.

2. MAD makes an attack by an established nuclear power effectively zero.

3. A nuclear attack by a terrorist organization is far more likely.

4. Terrorists would smuggle the weapon inside the US, not fire off a missile.

5. Missile defense therefore is ineffective at defending us from a likely attack.

Or, another way to put it is:
Missile defense doesn't prevent us from getting attacked by Russia... our nukes do. Our nukes, however, won't protect us from terrorists.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: preslove
Terrorists will never, ever, ever use an ICBM to attack us. They will use a shipping container, a car, hell, even a donkey to smuggle it into the US. So, what do we do?
We implement a defense strategy for every likely attack vector -- securing the ports of entry AND creating missile shields, amongst other things. Terrorists are not the only threat we face.

But you knew that already...

But our efforts should obviously be prioritized. The government doesn't have unlimited resources to throw at every potential attack vector, so the obvious solution is to spend money where it will do the most good. Given the extremely high cost of an ABM system and the questionable benefits (especially when you factor in the negative foreign relations impact we'll almost certainly face if we complete such a system), I don't see how it's a good place to spend our defense dollars.

In any case, I'm a big believer in defense solutions that don't just focus on one attack vector, because if history has taught us anything, it's that trying to guess what kind of threats we'll face next is quite difficult. I think we'd be much better off if we scrapped our ABM research and spent those dollars in intelligence...especially HUMINT resources. That way we have a pretty good chance of being able to stop the next threat even if it's NOT something a multi-billion dollar defense contractor thought of.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

Why do people keep up bringing OJ in Obama threads...

...

:roll:

(psssst, even if you aren't racist, which isn't very likely, it makes you come off as one)
Classic and on que. The moment someone criticizes Hussein Obama they are immediately labeled a racist. Way to play that card. I imagine it will only get worse as the campaign season wears on.

Uh, I think it's the way you're doing it, chief. Criticize him all you want, but the way you repeatedly focus on his middle name and his skin color makes it seems like your dislike of him is strongly based on his race.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: preslove
. . .Obama has been working on tracking down Russian nukes and non-proliferation in the Senate, which shows you that he has his priorities straight. This is the smart and harder path, because it addresses the actual threat and takes diplomacy & intelligence. It is a whole lot easier, and stupider, to hand billions of dollars to military contractors for a technical fix to a threat that doesn't even fucking exist.
Righttt. . .kind of like OJ has been hunting for Nicole's killer all these years. :roll: He has been an emtpy suit in the Senate.

Why do people keep up bringing OJ in Obama threads...

...

:roll:

(psssst, even if you aren't racist, which isn't very likely, it makes you come off as one)
Classic and on que. The moment someone criticizes Hussein Obama they are immediately labeled a racist. Way to play that card. I imagine it will only get worse as the campaign season wears on.

Comparing him to OJ is criticism? lol

Using his middle name is classy, too.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


Where the fuck did I say anything about terrorists? One minute you're defending your position by saying an attack by Russia or China (these are countries that can attack us, not terrorists) would result in MAD, the next you are arguing that it would be useless against terrorists. Do you know what the hell you are even talking about?

And that makes 5 for the SN.

Let me try to put this as simply as possible so you can understand.

1. Missile defense is not the reason why we've avoided nuclear conflict with Russia. MAD is.

2. MAD makes an attack by an established nuclear power effectively zero.

3. A nuclear attack by a terrorist organization is far more likely.

4. Terrorists would smuggle the weapon inside the US, not fire off a missile.

5. Missile defense therefore is ineffective at defending us from a likely attack.

Or, another way to put it is:
Missile defense doesn't prevent us from getting attacked by Russia... our nukes do. Our nukes, however, won't protect us from terrorists.

I'm not even going to argue with you. You're too god damned dense.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: preslove
...
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


Where the fuck did I say anything about terrorists? One minute you're defending your position by saying an attack by Russia or China (these are countries that can attack us, not terrorists) would result in MAD, the next you are arguing that it would be useless against terrorists. Do you know what the hell you are even talking about?

And that makes 5 for the SN.

Let me try to put this as simply as possible so you can understand.

1. Missile defense is not the reason why we've avoided nuclear conflict with Russia. MAD is.

2. MAD makes an attack by an established nuclear power effectively zero.

3. A nuclear attack by a terrorist organization is far more likely.

4. Terrorists would smuggle the weapon inside the US, not fire off a missile.

5. Missile defense therefore is ineffective at defending us from a likely attack.

Or, another way to put it is:
Missile defense doesn't prevent us from getting attacked by Russia... our nukes do. Our nukes, however, won't protect us from terrorists.

I'm not even going to argue with you. You're too god damned dense.

I don't know, preslove's point seems pretty valid to me. The kinds of nuclear threats an ABM system would protect against have been dealt with for a long him with the successful (if a little bit disturbing) MAD policy. On the other hand, the NEW kinds of threats we might face where MAD won't work won't be solved with an ABM system either.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, preslove's point seems pretty valid to me. The kinds of nuclear threats an ABM system would protect against have been dealt with for a long him with the successful (if a little bit disturbing) MAD policy. On the other hand, the NEW kinds of threats we might face where MAD won't work won't be solved with an ABM system either.

What about countries that have or are developing those capabilities? You're telling me they don't exist and aren't an issue?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, preslove's point seems pretty valid to me. The kinds of nuclear threats an ABM system would protect against have been dealt with for a long him with the successful (if a little bit disturbing) MAD policy. On the other hand, the NEW kinds of threats we might face where MAD won't work won't be solved with an ABM system either.

What about countries that have or are developing those capabilities? You're telling me they don't exist and aren't an issue?

What we're saying is that it is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely a country such as that would attempt to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US by way of missile. It's like hanging a big sign on your front door that says "obliterate me". The overwhelmingly likely scenario for a country to attempt to attack the US with a nuclear weapon is through a proxy group smuggling it into the US the old fashioned way, by boat, overland from Canada or Mexico, etc.

While it is technically possible such a launch would occur, it is not probable. Since our resources are finite, we should not spend billions of dollars on a system that protects us from the least likely avenue of attack for a nuclear weapon. If we were spending this money as part of a comprehensive strategy that had already addressed these other risks, then NMD would be easier to justify. I still wouldn't support it because of the awful technical issues, but it would be a reasonable position to take.

What we are doing now is just really dumb.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,941
264
126
Standard SM-3 is not exactly unproven nor is it anything more than a shoehorn missile defense.

If Obama cuts funding to thaad and some of the other pieces of the nmd then its no big deal. They are unproven. And every test to date on the bigger pieces has been tainted with "cheating" to make them look better than they could ever dream to be. Anyone that thinks the nmd is real should buy one of my bridges.