Bush sets date for missle defense deployment - Decisive acti [Archive]

Capitalist Imperial

20th December 2002, 01:13

Quote: from SentinelofDestiny on 12:50 am on Dec. 20, 2002
I read about this. Who the hell is going to use ICBMs against america?

"Who would hijack 4 jet-liners with box-cutters and fly them straight into the World Trade Center, Capitol hill, and the Pentagon?"

We learned from 9/11 to expect anything. So, the answer is: Chinese hard-liners, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Al queda, Chechnya, or ANYONE!!!

There are 100's of ex-soviet nukes out there that are missing/unacounted for. Where are they?

The nucleaur threat did not end with the cold war's end. It is actually more unstable now with more than just 2 1st-world nations possesing them. Now pakistan, india, north korea, and other volitile nations are developing and stockpiling nukes, and many others are in the initial stages of starting nuclear programs.

History shows us that relationships between nations can turn on a dime, let alone the countries that already would love to harm the USA.

Not to acknowledge this would invite another 9/11, or worse!

SentinelofDestiny

20th December 2002, 01:28

Like I said, I don't know about this stuff, I was just making wild accusations.
Oh well, they only have themselves to blame for Nukes. The USSR and the US I mean. But then, WWII is to blame for that, and WWI is to blame for that... British Imperialism is to blame for that... the cycle of violence goes on and on and on...
lol, the above post isn't really an argument now I think of it.

Capitalist Imperial

20th December 2002, 01:54

LOL, I agree, there shouldn't be nukes, but this US initiative is solely for defense, not further aggression

SentinelofDestiny

20th December 2002, 02:13

yeah, defence is important. But I thought it didn't work yet anyway? And once you have a solid Defence... wheres the deterant not to nuke something? Ah, they probably won't... but it makes me edgy all the same.

Tkinter1

20th December 2002, 02:28

If the missle system doesn't ever shoot down an actual missile, it will at bare minimum deter the thought of using them against the US. Preparation is not a waste of money.

SentinelofDestiny

20th December 2002, 02:40

True, true, kind of like Flu Jabs. Hmm, I bet the UK will now have to get a Missle Defense Majigger. Oh well.

Exploited Class

20th December 2002, 17:02

I think I remember our defense being mutual destruction. That is the theory behind Arms build up by both sides since the 60's. I am not saying I agree, I think neither side should have gone past having 3 nukes. I'd say the instant obliteration of 6 cities and a few million people should be a good bargaining chip.

So evidently Nixon, Reagan, JFK, Ike, all of them were wrong, it wasn't mutual destruction that kept us safe. It will be a missile shield that will protect us from missiles from India and Pakistan, missile that go around 300 to 600 miles I think, which makes sense when your enemy is across your border and not across seas.

In any event, if India and Pakistan did turn out to hate us, why would they send missiles at us when they would be obliterated? That is just a ridiculous jingoistic thought if one was to harbor it. China's missiles, all 10 of them, have a different launch method and use a different type of missile that requires them to take a day of fueling them prior to launch. They can not stand at the ready.

There is also a difference as far as nuclear missiles missing from Russia and warheads. There are warheads missing not full missiles. Warheads get shipped into a country not flown in when the missile part is missing. How does a missile defense shield prevent this?

As far as a balance of power, that is gone now. If America does have a missile defense shield it gives it an ability never before seen. To be able to throw missiles at any country and being protected from the same being done to it. Not that I am saying America will, but looking at its past, in the 50's during the Korean War (a conventional war) senators argued and argued the use of nukes into china. They even made videos on how they would do it. Bush has already spoken of using them with Afghanistan and with Iraq. Quotes of turning the Middle East to "Glass" is shared by many Americans. That could be an easy possibility without the fear of nuclear retaliation.

America would have dictatorship and an even greater leverage when making trade deals or settling any conflict. We can nuke you but you and nobody else can. Good bye any sense of balance of power in this world. Not that there has been any since America has spent 400billion on the military, 30 billion on homeland defense, and Russia the second largest military in the world spends only 80Billion.

This project is also a political and financial project. The military contractors lobby that we need this or else. Then senators will fight over who's state gets to make these wonderful devices, gaining votes for the senator that provides jobs for his/her homestate. And to people who say, that the people of the united states want this, remember that GE who is one of the largest military contractors also Owns NBC who has one of the largest news networks in America as well.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

20th December 2002, 17:36

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:10 pm on Dec. 19, 2002
President Bush promises to have 1st stage NMD deployed by 2004 in an evolutionary approach to NMD, with more systems and more effective systems coming in 2006 and after.

President bush is making another courageous decision in protecting American benevolence and sovereignty, and ensuring the security and viability of the United States.

What so couragous to oder an invasion of Iraq or to have complete world domination.

OO sorry. I get it. It's the killer pretzels. Last time he was almost killed. The pretzels are threatning the President. We must act now! Wich country is next on our deathlist, comrade captalist imperialistic pig?? What shall we use now: Nukes, uranium, poisin gas, puppet regime?"God bless America"

Moskitto

20th December 2002, 22:12

if you think there shouldn't be nukes then just have a system to shoot down every nuke wherever it's lauched, then people wouldn't bother building them,

or develop nanotechnology and build some type of nanite diffuser,

Exploited Class

20th December 2002, 22:58

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:12 pm on Dec. 20, 2002
if you think there shouldn't be nukes then just have a system to shoot down every nuke wherever it's lauched, then people wouldn't bother building them,

or develop nanotechnology and build some type of nanite diffuser,
Eh wot?

Moskitto

20th December 2002, 23:44

have a system to inactivate any nuclear device anywhere,

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

21st December 2002, 00:06

And how much country's have the money? And do u think Dubya gives it's technology away?

Capitalist Imperial

21st December 2002, 00:58

how can you leftists continue to attack a system that is only for defense?

thats the bottom line, you are actually taking an issue with the US merely defending itself

Umoja

21st December 2002, 01:04

Yeah, it is only defense. War on Iraq is totally different, but I generally advocate letting Nuclear Weapons proliferate because mutal destruction would be invetible, so the chance of it would be lessend, arguably.

Exploited Class

21st December 2002, 02:28

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:58 am on Dec. 21, 2002
how can you leftists continue to attack a system that is only for defense?

thats the bottom line, you are actually taking an issue with the US merely defending itself

Defense for the last 60 years was to have an offense from mutual destruction. Now all of a sudden that is no longer valid. For some reason the Russians wouldn't attack us because they would fear being deystroyed but China and North Korea don't care if they get hit with nukes?

Its not defensive, it allows for the use of offensive weapons without fear of retaliation.

America br definitionis is the ONLY country ever in the history of the world to ever use a nuclear weapon, the only. No matter what reasons you give for it using it, it is still the only country to solve a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. Not one country in the last 60 years has stepped up and used one.

But has America thought of using them afterwards? Yes. Nixon on several occasions had played with the idea of using nuclear weapons to end the vietnam war, what stopped him? The mutual destruction idea, it was too risky. In the Korean war, it was debated several times to use nuclear weapons, why didn't we? Because of the fear of nuclear retaliation, mutual destruction.

America has its excuses for using the atom bomb and if given an opportunity will create excuses for using it again. It was for freedom and freedom has a price. The world is a dangerous place, we didn't ask to be in this war. We didn't fly airplanes into their buildings. We had no choice, we were losing a war...

And what happens when the wrong hands are elected into power? Can you even imagine what it would be like to have hitler in control of a country that could launch nukes but knock down any that came at them?

And before you think that is an extreme argument, look around and see that we spend 400Billion on military, that the rest of the world is scared of us, angry at us and we are currently attacking Iraq first. I truly doubt that most Germans thought ooh next week we will all be an evil empire.

SentinelofDestiny

21st December 2002, 02:49

YES! Exploited class, you said what I was trying to say perfectly! Sigh, I wish I could be bothered to think. But like I said, too many braincells dead from headbanging.

Umoja

21st December 2002, 06:05

But, if a organization uses a Nuclear Weapon against a country, the country can't retalitate with it's own nuclear strength. So, it's not illogical to build a missle defense system, even though it could end up just being a huge system of orbital lasers.

Exploited Class

21st December 2002, 07:05

Quote: from Umoja on 6:05 am on Dec. 21, 2002
But, if a organization uses a Nuclear Weapon against a country, the country can't retalitate with it's own nuclear strength. So, it's not illogical to build a missle defense system, even though it could end up just being a huge system of orbital lasers.

Okay, I am guessing when you use the term, 'organization' you are saying like a terrorist organization? Terrorists wouldn't launch a nuclear device, it isn't possible. China with over 1 billion people, the best they have accomplished as a country with scientists, funding, construction at best take hours to launch a missle since the missles are liquid not solid fuel.

A terrorist organization is not going to launch, they couldn't. And where are they going to build a launching pad for this? The middle eastern countries right now have more spying satellites on it than ever before. As the one senator said during debates on the war with Iraq, they couldn't build a grain silo with out us knowing about it.

All that set aside, what Russia is missing is not MISSLES that carry nuclear devices, but the Warheads. Warheads get shipped into countries and explode, they can not fly on their own. What missle defense can any body think of that stops a warhead from getting shipped into a country and exploding? I know of not one. No giant sci-fi lasers is going to see inside the hull of a ship carrying a warhead and blow it up.

Stormin Norman

21st December 2002, 13:46

I love it. Getting back to the important matter of defense would only be seen as an aggresive move by an illiogical, illiberal leftist. They do not wish for us to retaliate when we are attacked, nor do they wish us to develop the systems to prevent an initial attack. Does anyone but me see how the liberals want a policy of voluntary suicide on the part of the victim? Perhaps this is at the heart of the opposition to the 2nd amendment as well. Whatever the case may be, I hate liberals. I do not understand their incompetence, nor do I excuse it. They are as much of an enemy to our state than the Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

21st December 2002, 15:16

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:58 am on Dec. 21, 2002
how can you leftists continue to attack a system that is only for defense?

thats the bottom line, you are actually taking an issue with the US merely defending itself

It creates a state of invunerablility. The US can nuke the world away, but they can't counterstrike.

Guest

21st December 2002, 15:26

"It creates a state of invunerablility. The US can nuke the world away, but they can't counterstrike."

Are you illiberals really as dumb as I suspect? You claim that we should not build a system because it will give us an unfair advantage in war. do you not realize what you are saying? You are saying that we should keep ourselves vulnerable in order to give the enemy a better chance of hitting us. Maybe those countries who do not like that advantage should create their own systems.

The logic I am hearing is equivalent to saying that I should not block punchs when I get into a fight. If I do come to blows, I should make sure that I end up as damaged as my adversary. Fucking stupid.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

21st December 2002, 15:33

The system works like this: if you strike a nation, you will be striked back. That's what keeps you from striking him.

But now he is interrupting the system. If he strikes a nation, he does that without consequenses and that makes you invunerable.

And stfu with your nazi talk.

Think, talk, act. Not in a other order!

Stormin Norman

21st December 2002, 15:43

Take your own advice pal.

Mutually assured destruction was always a bad policy. You never really know the extent of your enemies capabilities. You can not assume they have not built defense system of their own. You do not know the extent of the civililian defense conditions. Therefore, you create the best possible defense. It seems that once again a liberal takes the stance of preferred suicide. What a surprise!

Capitalist Imperial

21st December 2002, 22:55

SN, they just don't get it.

They just want us to put our fists down and allow ourselves to get bloodied and bruised, I guess.

But I suppose that is in-line with socialist policies, everyone suffers equally.

Leftists, get it through your thick skulls. There is no way that you can logically argue against an system that is inherently defensive in nature,and would require an initiated attack by another party to deploy.

do I need to go slower?

Xvall

21st December 2002, 23:07

"Who would hijack 4 jet-liners with box-cutters and fly them straight into the World Trade Center, Capitol hill, and the Pentagon?"

Who's national security system would be pathetic enough to ALLOW a bunch of foreigners hijack jet liners with box-cutters and let them fly them straight into the World Trade Center, Capitol Hill, and the Pentagon? Regardless. I don't see how a missle defense system would stop people from hijacking planes and smuggling in bombs.

Capitalist Imperial

21st December 2002, 23:13

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 11:07 pm on Dec. 21, 2002
"Who would hijack 4 jet-liners with box-cutters and fly them straight into the World Trade Center, Capitol hill, and the Pentagon?"

Who's national security system would be pathetic enough to ALLOW a bunch of foreigners hijack jet liners with box-cutters and let them fly them straight into the World Trade Center, Capitol Hill, and the Pentagon? Regardless. I don't see how a missle defense system would stop people from hijacking planes and smuggling in bombs.

DD, I think you missed the point of my quote. I meanbt that 9/11 showed us that we need to be prepared for anything, including rogue states getting a warhead and an ICBM and trying to use it against the US

P.S. No nations defense security system would have detected that.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

22nd December 2002, 00:54

CI do u consider yourself more worth than an Etiopier, Chinese, Ecudor. If so you are racist. If not: Why don't you allow them to eat, while half of the US is dying of fattness.

Umoja

22nd December 2002, 01:37

Ho Chi Minh said that no amount of defense can protect from a person strapping themselves with explosives and running into an enemy camp. A person who wants to kill stuff, including themselves, can't be stopped.

Exploited Class

22nd December 2002, 05:17

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:55 pm on Dec. 21, 2002

They just want us to put our fists down and allow ourselves to get bloodied and bruised, I guess.

Leftists, get it through your thick skulls. There is no way that you can logically argue against an system that is inherently defensive in nature,and would require an initiated attack by another party to deploy.

do I need to go slower?

Yes, that is exactly what I have been arguing, to let people just die, because really that is what has been happening the last 60 years in America. People just exploding from nuclear bombs because of no defense shield. I just want more people getting bloodied and bruised. Nice strawman debating skills. They don't want America or any other country for that matter to build a defensive shield because they want everybody to die. Obviously I want everybody to die, since I have been arguing that America with the ability to stop nuclear missles would be able to bomb other countries without fear of retaliation. If you didn't notice, the bombing of other countries would be people dying which coincidently I am against. So your argument has no rational statement to it.

"it would require an initiated attack by another party to deploy." So there is some special switch on it that doesn't allow them to fire on incomming missles if America launches first? They only will be launched if another country attacks first?

It might be defensive in nature much like a shield on a knight. Unfortunetly the shield on the knight is only their to protect when he thrusts with his sword.

If you want to be defensive, and you truly do, then remove all attacking nukes. Then I would agree that America's action serves on for defense.

Do you need to read this slower?

Stormin Norman

22nd December 2002, 10:28

"If you want to be defensive, and you truly do, then remove all attacking nukes. Then I would agree that America's action serves on for defense."

Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. Do not start building the system until the extent of your entire nuclear arsenol is dismantled. Yet another illogical notion. I would never completely dimantled the offensive component of the nuclear program for the reasons noted earlier. If the enemy compromises your defense system, they must still have a reprisal to fear. Even if they launched and we knocked every last ICBM out of the sky, they should be met with the fullest force of our nuclear capability. It would be kind of silly to take no further action on the matter. They launched and should suffer the consequences of that decision, which remains their annihilation. If they didn't have to worry about a counter attack, they could try our systems indefinetely until they eventually succeed.

synthesis

22nd December 2002, 11:51

...they should be met with the fullest force of our nuclear capability.

Killing hundred thousands of innocent people who may or may not agree with the actions taken by the government that may or may not represent them?

Ah, the logic of a capitalist!

Stormin Norman

22nd December 2002, 12:57

What do you propose, letting them get away with assaulting us? You would probably defend the rapist, too.

Comrade Daniel

22nd December 2002, 16:10

I think the defence system is not a good idea:
When the US has got the defence around it's country it will start to attack other countries because they can't do something back anyway. Finally it's like the US is shooting from a castle, while the arrows of the enemy collapse against the stone wall.

Umoja

22nd December 2002, 21:14

You guys are saying we should withhold technological advancement for the sake of not defending ourselves? I realize most of you are blinded by United States hatred, but think logically, why shouldn't someone build a defense that harms no one (besides the workers but that's a different story)?

Comrade Daniel

23rd December 2002, 13:45

Quote: shouldn't someone build a defense that harms no one (besides the workers but that's a different story)?

Thy hurt the workes, soon when the defence is finished they will hurt others because the ones thet hurt can't hurt them!!!!!

Stormin Norman

23rd December 2002, 13:47

Anyone who trys to stop us ought to be hurt, because more than likely they are currently plotting our demise.

Umoja

23rd December 2002, 18:54

It's also illogical to view our citizens as the most valuable people on Earth, so creating a defense system, would mean we should make sure other nations have access to similar technology to protect their own citizens.

Tkinter1

23rd December 2002, 19:42

The missile defense system has one primary goal: To protect the US citizens from an ICBM attack from terroists. The US is not just going to go around invading other nations solely becuase they think they won't get hit back. The US is not just going to go around invading other nations period.

Moskitto

23rd December 2002, 20:26

it's not that hard to knock out the system, all you need is a giant laser to knock out the satelites, then you can nuke the US, well, that's what you'd do if someone like Matt Hale came to power,

MJM

23rd December 2002, 21:00

Another way to overcome the shield is to just build around ten times as many missiles a normal. If the US can get a 90% strike rate (which is highly unlikely)at incoming missiles it means you'll need around ten times as many as before.
Not so good for nuclear disarmament, I'd hazard a guess that it'll make nuclear disarmament impossible.

Moskitto

23rd December 2002, 21:14

I've heard from other MDS supporters that it would just stop a terrorist attack not an attack by a rogue nation not an all out strike from China, Russia or France to justify the no more MAD arguement because the amount of missiles it can stop isn't that great, but wouldn't a terrorist have one in a briefcase?

Exploited Class

23rd December 2002, 21:46

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 7:42 pm on Dec. 23, 2002
The missile defense system has one primary goal: To protect the US citizens from an ICBM attack from terroists. The US is not just going to go around invading other nations solely becuase they think they won't get hit back. The US is not just going to go around invading other nations period.

Yes because we haven't invaded Afghanistan, are not preparing to go into Iraq and we are not telling N. Korea right now that we can win a war on two fronts.

Protect the country from ICBM terrorist attacks? Does anybody here have a basic understanding to just how much work, manpower, resources, skills and everything else would be required from somebody other than a nation to build a Inter-Contintental Ballistic Missle?

I hate to break it to you but there are no Doctor Evil islands, there are no James Bond underground secret fortresses. They do not have an evil scientist on their side working on a gigantic death ray. They are not being lead by Cobra Commander. ICBM's are not for sell in Gun and Ammo magazines nor soldier of fortune. They are not available at gun shows. What Russia has reported missing are the devices inside the missles, not the missles themselves. ICBMs are not the back of a truck and trailer like in Spy's like Us.

Terrorists don't even have planes, they have to steal other people's to do what they want to. They don't even launch their explosives, they have to use a suicide bomber for their delivery system.

They don't want this missle defense shield for defense against terrorists. Reagan wanted it in the 80's and Bush wanted it prior to any terrorist attack.

To say America wants the shield to stop Terrorist ICBMs is ludicrous, has no weight and is ridiculous to even speculate. They wanted it for the scary Russians that were in no way going to fire nukes at America at the cost of them being wiped off the face of the planet, Bush wanted it because of "Rogue States". Who we would then have to believe would not care if they would be wiped out as well. How can anybody believe any country would decide on that course of action?

Tkinter1

24th December 2002, 05:33

"Yes because we haven't invaded Afghanistan, are not preparing to go into Iraq and we are not telling N. Korea right now that we can win a war on two fronts."

And you're telling me the US has no reason to invade these countries what-so-ever. You misinterpreted what I was saying. The US is not just going to go around and RANDOMLY invade countries becuase we have a 50% effective missile defense shield.

"Does anybody here have a basic understanding to just how much work, manpower, resources, skills and everything else would be required from somebody other than a nation to build a Inter-Contintental Ballistic Missle?"

Maybe a terrorist out there has more than a basic understanding, a decent amount of man power, and millions of dollars. And believe it or not, its not that hard to build a nuclear device anymore.

"I hate to break it to you but there are no Doctor Evil islands, there are no James Bond underground secret fortresses. They do not have an evil scientist on their side working on a gigantic death ray. They are not being lead by Cobra Commander. ICBM's are not for sell in Gun and Ammo magazines nor soldier of fortune. They are not available at gun shows. What Russia has reported missing are the devices inside the missles, not the missles themselves. ICBMs are not the back of a truck and trailer like in Spy's like Us."

Nooo thats not true, is it?

"Terrorists don't even have planes, they have to steal other people's to do what they want to. They don't even launch their explosives, they have to use a suicide bomber for their delivery system."

Are you telling m e Osama can't afford a plane??

"they have to use a suicide bomber for their delivery system."

The 93 trade center bombings were not carried out by suicide bombers. We don't know what they're going to plan next

"To say America wants the shield to stop Terrorist ICBMs is ludicrous"

No it's really not. Or maybe it is ludicrous until a terroist actually does it. Terrorists are more powerful than you think.

Why be unprepared??

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:35 am on Dec. 24, 2002)

truthaddict11

24th December 2002, 05:38

what about when those missles fail or crash down to Earth? Can you say Nuclear Disaster?

Stormin Norman

24th December 2002, 11:19

A good missile defense system would have the capability of spotting the lauch sequence in the initial phase, and frying the electronics right there on the launch pad before they even have a chance to launch. The grand finale would be to detonate the enemies own warheads for them, thereby destroying their silos without ever having to launch one of our own.

Wouldn't it be great if we had the technology that would let us exploit the out of date technology of the enemy. What if our system were so advanced that we could effectively gain full control of the enemies weapons systems. More than likely we would need a couple of spies in their military to help us achieve this end, but I think it could be done.

Whatever the circumstance, I am sure their are creative minds within these programs making pipedreams like mine become a reality.

If we have the technology to build a system to spy on virtually everyone in the world electronically, we can definetly come up with a useful BMD system. As I am sure we already have.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"it's not that hard to knock out the system, all you need is a giant laser to knock out the satelites"

Could you explain?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

24th December 2002, 12:38

He Stormin Moron isn't that when the USA has it's missle defense it's invunerable for other nations. And doesn't need to think of them because the other nations can't launch an attack. Isn't so that the USA then can destroy every part of the world that they want without consequency's. Doesn't this all make the US a threat to every none American. Don't I have the right to defend myself? Don't you think that the USA is making itself a bigger target for "terrorists".

Moskitto

24th December 2002, 12:58

from my understanding, star wars (Reagen's one at least) uses a radar to detect the missile, this information is relayed to a satelite which uses a mirror to deflect a laser from annother satelite to destroy the missile,

Stormin Norman

24th December 2002, 15:18

That was just one prototype. I am sure that there were multiple teams tasked with designing various methods of achieving many different tasks. I am sure there was some overlap behind different closed doors who did not have the need to know of the other's mission. Multiple ways of skinning the proverbial cat were developed, as the wheel was also reinvented, such is the nature of compartmentalization. Point being, I don't think we sank all of our eggs in one basket. I am sure for the integrity of the overall objective, many of these programs remain independent of the other, solely for the purpose of not allowing one part of the system to disable the whole. In the event of a problem the program remains operational.

Tkinter1

24th December 2002, 19:47

"what about when those missles fail or crash down to Earth? Can you say Nuclear Disaster?"

Nuclear missiles don't work like that. It has to go through a sequence before it actually detonates. It's not like gun powder

Moskitto

24th December 2002, 20:30

yeah, that's why nuclear bullets wouldn't work unlike what a Mr P. Wilkinson says, because there actually needs to be a system to detonate the warhead which wouldn't be able to exist in something the size of a bullet,

Umoja

25th December 2002, 05:16

"Nuclear Bullets" are made of Depleted Uranium. A Substance denser then lead, and radioactive, but not explosive. DU, is the main reason I oppose most United States Millitary actions, because it destroys the enviornment and the chemicals from it can stay in a human (and that persons children, and their children) for generations.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

25th December 2002, 19:20

He some Desert Storm veterans want to suy(something like that) the US army.

SentinelofDestiny

26th December 2002, 00:27

Ya, the Gulf War vets made a big fuss about DU in england. I don't know if it got them any help, but we MAY have stopped testing it in scotland or wherever, I can't remember.

Disgustipated

27th December 2002, 22:11

It doesn't matter anyway...it'll work just like the Patriot Missle defense system. They never actually hit one missle they were aimed at. The success of that system was pure propaganda. It's just another boondoggle to make some fat defense contractors wealthy. Probably a promise from monkee boy GW to repay the contributions to his campaign.

Moskitto

27th December 2002, 22:16

Quote: from Umoja on 5:16 am on Dec. 25, 2002
"Nuclear Bullets" are made of Depleted Uranium. A Substance denser then lead, and radioactive, but not explosive. DU, is the main reason I oppose most United States Millitary actions, because it destroys the enviornment and the chemicals from it can stay in a human (and that persons children, and their children) for generations.

actually, this guy was talking about nuclear bullets as in, bullet goes into guy, guy turns into small mushroom cloud,

yeah, this was in year 7 and this guy later went on to not do GCSEs.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

27th December 2002, 22:25

That's not a scientific theory that's one of the effects of RedAlert2.:smile:

Exploited Class

28th December 2002, 02:03

And you're telling me the US has no reason to invade these countries what-so-ever. You misinterpreted what I was saying. The US is not just going to go around and RANDOMLY invade countries becuase we have a 50% effective missile defense shield.

I never said the US didn't have a reason, everybody and every country and every war has had a reason. And if you look through the history books those that took the offense were considered wrong in doing so. The reasons will be sold to you and you have to buy them. They will be sold to you the same way they always have been, protect your way of life, to defend the motherland, people want to kill us. Hitler never stood up and said, "We are going to just attack other countries and kill jews and other people because it needs to done and we have no reasons." The bad thing is when you are in the middle of this propaganda being sold to you, the famous saying "Unable to see the forest in the trees." That is why an intelligent person aware of propanda campaigns (something the US has done very well since the Creel Creek Commision) looks to outside opinion to get a better picture. The whole world but Britain is currently pissed at this idea. If you go with America and don't listen to the rest of the world, you end up being the alcoholic being confronted by 20 of your friends telling you you're an alcoholic but you don't listen. Then you are just stubborn.

aybe a terrorist out there has more than a basic understanding, a decent amount of man power, and millions of dollars. And believe it or not, its not that hard to build a nuclear device anymore.
If you read my posts you will see I never said it wasn't impossible or out of the reach of terrorists to make a nuclear device of any type. What I have said is they have a snowball chance in hell of ever making a missle that can travel across continents.

Are you telling m e Osama can't afford a plane??
No, but I have yet to ever see evidence ever pointing to that, and even if they did, the missle defense shield proves useless in stopping a plane.

The 93 trade center bombings were not carried out by suicide bombers. We don't know what they're going to plan next
We have no idea what anybody is going to plan next. We don't know what effect having something like a missle defense shield is going to do also to the world balance. It is intelligent to say that since we have yet to ever be struck by one of these missles, there is a good chance we won't be. But messing with the balance of power could have determental effects on a geopolitical level, if you are actually determined to defend the american way of life you might not want to piss off the whole world doing it, that is when other countries attack.

No it's really not. Or maybe it is ludicrous until a terroist actually does it. Terrorists are more powerful than you think.

Terorists are not more powerful than I think. You can't be powerful when you are constantly on the run. In order to do some of the things you suggest, you need a country, you need research headquaters, established budgets. ICBMs are not something you can just throw together. Again if you think they are all powerful like you describe I redirect you to them not having secret island research labs like in James Bond movies. You are arguing a bunch of what ifs, maybes and possibles based on absolutely no facts. You are arguing my facts with your fiction. My suggestion or advice to you is to take your eyes off of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC a while where they are feeding you fear 24 hours a day and think logically about what terrorists have actually been able to acomplished vs. what they could accomplish and realise that the jump from the two is a million miles apart.

Why be unprepared??
You can't be prepared for every monster and boogie man somebody has conjured up to scare you with. You will end up fighting the wind.

Tkinter1

28th December 2002, 05:58

Exploited Class,

Maybe not so much ICBM's, you're right. But the missile defense shield could also protect against smaller, easier to wield missiles, that could be strapped to any ship containing any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

"We have no idea what anybody is going to plan next. We don't know what effect having something like a missle defense shield is going to do also to the world balance."

So we should just sit around and wait for anything to happen? We shouldn't take initiative?
Do you really think a missile defense shield is going to do a lot to the world balance? I think it takes more than a missile defense shield to disrupt world balance. Hell, this missile defense shield could unite the world, we just don't know right?

"Terorists are not more powerful than I think."
Never underestimate an enemy.

"You can't be powerful when you are constantly on the run."
Why not? The American troops during the Revolutionary war shot and ran, were they not powerful? Did they not shock everyone?

"Again if you think they are all powerful like you describe I redirect you to them not having secret island research labs like in James Bond movies. "
Who said they have secret lairs like James Bond movies?

"You are arguing a bunch of what ifs, maybes and possibles based on absolutely no facts."

I don't know if I'm going to go into battle and get shot. It's only a possibility. They have half as many men as we have anyway, so chances are I won't get shot. I don't have any facts to prove that I will get shot, so I won't wear my vest. Do you agree with that?

"You are arguing my facts with your fiction."

Everything is fiction first, then it becomes fact. And what hard facts do you have that you can categorically say what a terrorist can and will do? Do you think you're an analyst? Do you think you've studied terrorism?

"My suggestion or advice to you is to take your eyes off of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC a while where they are feeding you fear 24 hours a day and think logically about what terrorists have actually been able to acomplished vs. what they could accomplish and realise that the jump from the two is a million miles apart."

You not only speculated on what terrorists will do, but now on what I do. No I can't read everything, and absorb every piece of information out there, containing every type of "fact", but I come to my own conclusions on things from the varied sources I do read. I am not a drone who believes everything i see on CNN. But I am also not a fool, who believes everything that only fits my agenda.

"You can't be prepared for every monster and boogie man somebody has conjured up to scare you with. You will end up fighting the wind."

You're right.

All a terrorist needs to start a small nuclear war is
- a small ship
- one long range missile
- one chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon
- the will to push the button

Think this is un accomplishable? Then you are living in fiction, you are unrealistic.

...And correct me if i'm wrong, but is your logic: we just don't know, therefore we should not do

Stormin Norman

28th December 2002, 10:17

Anyone who ignores the probability that a rouge state will inevitably get a hold of an ICBM and launch it on the U.S. out of desperation is ignoring the facts. Here are the facts:

When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 their weapons programs were in severe disarray. Full accounting for their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons was virtually impossible at that time. Most of the educated people who are experts in Russian intelligence admit that some of these weapons went up for sale on the black market.

Soon after, North Korea, India, and Pakistan developed capable nuclear programs. Where did they get the information and materials? The instability of these regions and the corruption of their respective governments lend to the probable outcome that they will indeed pass this information to other enemies of the United States, at a price.

The Russian Federation and the Chinese Republic are some of the biggest arms dealers. Under heavy criticism they have continued to support the weapons programs of many of our enemies including Iran and Iraq. They have put diplomatic pressure on the U.S. not to proceed in its best interest and eliminate the regimes that directly threaten the security of our nation. In return we have seen increased activity in the weapons trade between our enemies in the Middle East.

Look at the situation in Korea. Former president Carter, under the Clinton Administration, brokered a deal between N. Korea and the U.S. This deal was derived from a policy of appeasement. In return for heavy water reactors, food, oil, and everything under the sun, the N. Korean government agreed to shelve its nuclear program. In fact, this deal making landed Carter the Nobel Peace Prize, even after the revelation made by the N. Koreans, which stated that they had a fully operational nuclear program.

This 'news' hit the wire after President Bush was admonished by liberals for so rightly labeling N. Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil". The executive cut all food shipments and suspended oil transportation from Alaska to N. Korea. Caught in a dire situation the N. Koreans made bold moves to publicly oust the IAEA inspectors, after first dismantling the monitoring systems located around their reactors. The bi-products of nuclear energy production can easily be refined into weapons grade nuclear material, and dispensed.

In fact, the N. Koreans are trying to use this reality as a method of blackmailing the American government into continuing with shipments of much needed food and oil. Wisely, the Administration has declined. With angst the N. Korean government has continued by threatening war and even breaking armistice agreements from 1952 by bringing weapons into the DMZ. On top of this they are in the process of brokering weapons deals that could effectively increase their long-range missile capability to the West Coast of the U.S.

I now ask you this. Is the threat of an ICBM is as nominal as you suggest? I am convinced that it is more of a threat now than ever. It is true that during the Cold War we operated under the principle of MAD. To place further faith on such a risky venture, with enemies who might resort to a scorched earth policy in the event of a war, would truly be madness. Anyone suggesting otherwise is merely a sucker who has bought into the left's suicidal worldview. I have one suggestion to make to the believers of the liberal lies. If you value your life so little, why don't you move someplace like North Korea or Iraq, whose leaders would gladly accommodate you in your personal quest for death and despair?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:08 am on Dec. 29, 2002)