National Missile Defense System. . . . . Good or bad?

Bad bad bad!

We're pouring billions of dollars into a system that won't work. We're funding a program that will cause political instability and ironically, could defeat its purpose by causing another arms race. I'm still angry at Bush for pulling out of the ABM treaty.

 

I have mixed feelings on this (bear in mind I'm not an American). I'd obviously be opposed if the shield covered only America, which would leave Europe as the main target, but if it were extended to America's allies, I'm unconvinced either way.

Does anyone have any compelling reasons for or against?

 

A system which will destroy missiles against the US is far too risky for all concerned. Countries will want to try it out, the US will be seen as simply throwing down the gauntlet to those nations which are all for the use of missiles. Rather than wasting billions on such an idea, couldn't the money go to something more constructive?
As an Australian citizen, I know little about the concept, but from my vague understanding, any missiles will be intercepted by other missiles and thus exploded into the atmosphere? (If this is incorrect, my apologies) What happens when you get biological weapons firing? Hitting them into the atmosphere will only spread diseases (sounds stupid, but think about it). I just see it as being the next way for the US to go one up, encouraging the world to follow or react as it sees fit....

 

"I don't know much about this, but it sounds bad!"




Very enlightened discussion.


First, the goal of being able to protect countries or continents from intercontinental ballistic missiles is a powerful enough goal that anyone can readily see the obvious potential benefits. With such a high-reward goal, I think that it is wrong to use the 'it won't work' argument anywhere. Clearly, if one takes that attitude, or never invests in the first steps, it WILL never work, and that would be a waste and a shame. Opposition to the idea must be built upon the issues of money or globabl stability.



As far as global stability is concerned, I think it is quite clear that the greatest threat to America and Western Europe is the potential destruction of WOMD. With all respect to the dangers of global terrorism, an ICBM with a nuke is still the nightmare scenario, and unstable states with nuclear weapons a ticking time bomb. The *first* thing that must be done is comprehensive work on nuclear material security, especially in the former Soviet Union, which will require a lot fo cooperation from Japan, the US and the EU ( and some of the parties seem abhoringly unwilling to look at this problem as serious).

However, a missile defense shield covering America, or America and Europe, or America and Europe and Japan, or America Japan Europe AND Russia, etc, brings that much more security. It brings another carrot (besides economics) for countries to join the West, and move the world in a more peaceful direction. The end result of this is not an expansion of American power, but a reduction, ironically enough. However, it results in a safer world.

Significantly, the Russians did not strongly object to America backing out of the obsolete treaty; funnily enough, Europe seemed more out of sorts about how Russian would feel than Russia did!

Global instability due to arms races is a concern, though. I would like to hear more opinions about this.



As far as money is concerned, that is also a reason to question this. It is a risk, given the developmental nature of the project. However, I do not believe it is the boondoggle that some look on it as, and would like to hear more discussion about where you think the money should go, and why.



"They'll want to try it out."
Please take this analysis out of the 7th grade.

 

I think that, given the potential, it's a good idea.

We're pouring billions of dollars into a system that won't work.

How do you know that it won't work? Reports that I have seen show that the system, while still buggy, has serious potential. We pour billions into other projects that I would view as wasteful. The federal government's primary mission is to protect it's citizens...what's wrong with exploring new ways to do so?

We're funding a program that will cause political instability and ironically, could defeat its purpose by causing another arms race.

Just about everything the US does anymore is going to cause controversy somewhere. Just because one group or another doesn't like something that we're doing, is that a reason to stop? And if this shield were to become operational, why couldn't we share the basics of the technologies with our allies? It is not the United States' responsibility to protect other nations, but I see nothing wrong with helping them along with their own shields once we had ours operational.

As far as starting another arms race; I hate to break it to you, but there is an arms race going on right now. There is a reason why we want weapons inspectors in Iraq. True, WoMD do not only include nuclear weapons, but they are the primary concern as other nations sell their nuclear stockpiles and technology to other countries. The nuclear threat is real, and I would have thought that people would be waking up to the fact that this is not a safe world after 9/11. It's time to realize that we are under attack, even if you're not a US citizen. There will always be some little dictator out there who is going to want power and attention, and if he can't use the US as a scapegoat/rallying point, he will use another country.

I'm still angry at Bush for pulling out of the ABM treaty.

Why? You like the idea of our only deterrent against nuclear attack being the threat of retaliation? Well, who exactly are we going to retaliate against if a nuke comes from a terrorist organization that is hiding in England? Or Israel? Or New York? Are we supposed to nuke London in retaliation to a missile they didn't fire?

We are in a new era, one where the tactics of old are no longer viable. We can't scare radicals into not attacking the way we can legitimate governments. If a nuke had been launched from Afghanistan instead of planes being hijacked, who would we have nuked in retaliation?

 

It's a good thing, how is it not? It works 85% of the time (Maybe more, don't have exact numbers, going by memory here), and it protects us. If you consider this a waste of money, what do you consider a good use of money?

 

I think its a logical idea.



BEWARE OF THE ILUMNATI AND TRILATERAL COMMISSION BIDDING FOR WORLD UNIFICATION!

 

I think its a good idea, a system like that would protect us here from quite a few threats and could protect us against possible terrorist attacks in the future. And for countries that object, if they had the ability to do it themselves they would be researching it as well. But if we further it enough I think it would be a good idea to share it with Europe.

 

Before India and Pakistan got thrown into the mix I was for sharing the missle shield with every nuclear capable nation, as it would alleviate the need for another country to build up their stockpile to overwhelm the shield to counteract it. I suppose we still could but the India/Pakistan situation is so volitile I'm not sure that anything besides M.A.D. would be effective. Maybe I'm just reading the situation wrong though.

I don't think a complete ban and destruction of all nuclear weapons is going to happen in our lifetimes and mutually assured destruction is not and should not be the policy of the future. Till we move past war, a shield is the best alternative.

Someone mentioned Russia's lack of concern over the missle shield as of late. That's because US/Russian relations is stronger than the previous eight years. Bush has a great staff, and they've done an excellent job finding agreements that will benefit both the US and Russian people..

 

Their lack of concern started when they agree with Bush on the subject a few months ago.

Anyways, I think this is a much better way to try and stop the use of nukes than building up a bigger nuclear arsenal, thus "deterring" a smaller country.

 

We're pouring billions of dollars into a system that won't work.

People said that in the 50's and 60's about a moon launch. And I could say the same thing about our tax dollars. No technology is perfected immediately, but the technology is there.

We're funding a program that will cause political instability and ironically, could defeat its purpose by causing another arms race.

The fact of the matter is we already have (and always will) political instability throughout the globe. Our biggest danger is from these rogue states who will eventually -- if not stopped -- aquire WMD. Though not really an ally, Russia is not the threat, but her missiles are. The original "Star Wars" plan has become a more concise plan, not attempting to shoot down hundreds of missiles, but the one or two that might come from a state like Iraq or Iran (who is still an enemy).

The only arms race we face at the moment would be with China and even with stolen technology they are years behind. These rogue states, however, aren't trying to aquire enough weapons to keep up with the U.S., but rather enough to hurt her badly. Some would argue -- I being one -- that the arms race was a good thing in that it (1) kept nuclear arms in the front pages (2) bankrupted the Soviet Union.

I'm still angry at Bush for pulling out of the ABM treaty.

Treaties with nonexisistent countries are null and void. If Russia loves the ABM treaty so much, let's negotiate a new one -- maybe one that requires them to keep up with the nuclear arms they have.

 

I would seriously doubt this system is 85% effective against incoming missiles, and where does that figure come from anyway, the military? Obviously they have a vested interest in overstating the system's viability. This will prove to be another patriot missile scam, a confidence trick designed to lull the public into believing they're safe. The patriot was next door to useless when it came to stopping scuds, but this information was suppressed at the time, and only leaked out years after Desert storm.
Also, as far as I was aware from the political row in the UK, this system requires the use of bases in the UK, specifically yorkshire, and yet the UK, isn't covered by this alleged blanket. Thus we get the benefits of being a target, without any reciprocal benefits.

 

Here's the deal. Out of the tests in the last 20 years, something less than 20 % were sucessful. The NMD plan is supposed to consist of different components. For instance, we put 6.2 billion dollars into the navy NMD program . . . which was cancelled last December for cost overruns.

The ABM treaty assured protection through MAD-mutual assured destruction. Without that treaty, we have lost any protection we once had.

It can cause great political instability. By making other countries like N. Korea think that their 12-15 nuclear missile arsenal is no longer effective against the U.S. They will begin a buildup of nuclear weapons, I strongly believe that the only defence we have against nuclear war is to slash down on nuclear weaponry. We cannot do that if other countries feel threatened. We don't wanna start another buildup like how we had with the USSR.

Its not logical, we had to scale this program down to defend against 5-15 warheads, while it is virtually impossible to hit one(98% of failure). We cannot defend against terrorists with this program because its so much smarter to just carry it in a suitcase.

Reagan's "Star Wars" program spent 60 billion dollars and was not successful except for learning the fact that a NMD system will not work.

The only way a NMD plan would work would be to use nuclear interceptors(like Russia has aginst St. Petersburg and Moscow), which I know won't happen. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is virtually impossible, since that 2% chance of hitting the target is only when its in its booster stage.

 

---

Rogue_Product:

[b]A system which will destroy missiles against the US is far too risky for all concerned. Countries will want to try it out, the US will be seen as simply throwing down the gauntlet to those nations which are all for the use of missiles.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Why would a missile protection system encourage attacks against the US? If anything, it would discourage them, because the US could well be left unharmed, with the attacker bearing the brunt of full US retaliation.

[blockquote][hr]Rogue_Product:

[b]I know little about the concept, but from my vague understanding, any missiles will be intercepted by other missiles and thus exploded into the atmosphere? (If this is incorrect, my apologies) What happens when you get biological weapons firing? Hitting them into the atmosphere will only spread diseases (sounds stupid, but think about it).[/b][hr][/blockquote]The point about biological weapons is a good one. However, due to the complex structure of nuclear weapons, an intercepted nuclear missile would probably not cause a nuclear explosion. The process has to be triggered off very carefully--first conventional explosive, which detonates in precisely the right manner, then a fission reaction, which generates the heat necessary for a fusion reaction. A simple *bang* would just tear the warhead apart, not set it off.

[blockquote][hr]Red-Seven:

[b]First, the goal of being able to protect countries or continents from intercontinental ballistic missiles is a powerful enough goal that anyone can readily see the obvious potential benefits. With such a high-reward goal, I think that it is wrong to use the 'it won't work' argument anywhere. Clearly, if one takes that attitude, or never invests in the first steps, it WILL never work, and that would be a waste and a shame. Opposition to the idea must be built upon the issues of money or globabl stability.[/b][hr][/blockquote]If in all probability the technology will fail, then that is a compelling reason not to waste money building it in the first place. The ability to move the earth round the solar system at will would have obvious potential benefits, but we will never be able to do it, so spending billions on a project to do so would be pointless.

(Kudos for an excellent post, though, [b]Red-Seven[/b]).

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]How do you know that it won't work? Reports that I have seen show that the system, while still buggy, has serious potential. We pour billions into other projects that I would view as wasteful. The federal government's primary mission is to protect it's citizens...what's wrong with exploring new ways to do so?[/b][hr][/blockquote]Some US citizens have worse healthcare available than they would if they were living in Cuba. The billions being spent on the missile defence shield could be used to provide decent healthcare to the poorest Americans who cannot afford private medical insurance. Or, it could go into benefits, to drag people out of poverty.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]Why? You like the idea of our only deterrent against nuclear attack being the threat of retaliation? Well, who exactly are we going to retaliate against if a nuke comes from a terrorist organization that is hiding in England? Or Israel? Or New York? Are we supposed to nuke London in retaliation to a missile they didn't fire? [/b][hr][/blockquote]I don't think that it's very easy to set up and fire an ICBM in the middle of England. I think someone would notice if you were to start building a missile silo in the middle of London. :D

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]We are in a new era, one where the tactics of old are no longer viable. We can't scare radicals into not attacking the way we can legitimate governments. If a nuke had been launched from Afghanistan instead of planes being hijacked, who would we have nuked in retaliation?[/b][hr]
[/blockquote]A nuclear ICBM launched from Afghanistan is an extremely unlikely scenario. What is much more likely, however, is an NBC weapon in a suitcase--something that the mi

 

Some US citizens have worse healthcare available than they would if they were living in Cuba. The billions being spent on the missile defence shield could be used to provide decent healthcare to the poorest Americans who cannot afford private medical insurance. Or, it could go into benefits, to drag people out of poverty.

DS, the problem with what you are proposing is that it is not the governments responsibility to provide health care to people, it's primary purpose is to protect it's citizens from outward threats. The fact that other countries have better socialized health care should have no bearing on the US' health care. The truth is that most US citizens have better health care through the companies that they work for. Government health care is not a solution, it's a bigger problem for the vast majority of this country. This is not, however, a thread about socialism.

I don't think that it's very easy to set up and fire an ICBM in the middle of England. I think someone would notice if you were to start building a missile silo in the middle of London.

Agreed.

A nuclear ICBM launched from Afghanistan is an extremely unlikely scenario. What is much more likely, however, is an NBC weapon in a suitcase--something that the missile shield would offer no defence against. Why use an ICBM, when you can just put a bomb in the luggage compartment of an airliner? Thermonuclear warheads nowardays aren't much bigger than ordinary bombs.

Don't confuse radicals with terrorists. I, like most of the US, consider Saddam Hussein to be a radical. It would be more likely that he would launch a nuclear missile at the US than use terrorism, as he would appreciate the noteriety of being the first to attack the US with a nuclear weapon. He has the technology, and he most likely has the device itself. It's only a matter of time, unless he is stopped, until he uses it someone, either Israel or the US, most likely.

I consider fighting poverty and providing decent healthcare and education to be a good use of money. And I'm not aware of a single test in which the technology has yet worked.

Again, poverty and health care should not be the domain of the Federal Government. You may disagree, but many US citizens do not. The government's main priority is to defend it's citizens from outward threats. If the MDS can do that, then by all means investigate the technology. Whether or not it has worked yet or not is beside the point, as it has the potential to work in the future. If we as a nation weren't spending so much money on socialist programs, there would be a lot more to spend on defensive technologies.

The most likely terrorist scenario is a bomb in a suitcase, not an ICBM.

True, but again, not all threats are from terrorists. We have to look at a much larger picture, something that I admittedly did not do in my original post.

If the shield were shared with anyone who wanted it, that would alleviate many of the problems. A US-only shield is what would pose a great danger to world stability.

Which is exactly why we would want to share the technology with our trusted allies. I guarantee Israel could benefit from a NMD shield.


Qui_Gon_Jim23:

Our biggest danger is from these rogue states...

Darkside_Spirit:

One particular state I can think of has recently:


Torn up a treaty on climate change and taken great pains to persuade other nations not to ratify it.

Pulled out of a treaty to control weapons of mass destruction on the grounds that it would be bad for "business secrets".

Threatened to obstruct UN Security Council peacekeeping proceedings if it didn't get its way on a completely unrelated matter.

Continued a stream of $3bn aid to a country engaged in aggressive occupation, destruction, and oppression in neighbouring territories, including a curfew on the entire population and the wholesale destruction of civilian homes to make way for said country's settlements.


Is this state (whic

 

---

JediStryker:

[b]DS, the problem with what you are proposing is that it is not the governments responsibility to provide health care to people, it's primary purpose is to protect it's citizens from outward threats. The fact that other countries have better socialized health care should have no bearing on the US' health care. The truth is that most US citizens have better health care through the companies that they work for. Government health care is not a solution, it's a bigger problem for the vast majority of this country. This is not, however, a thread about socialism.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Well, we obviously have differing opinions about what the purpose of government is. Fortunately, the United States constitution provides a very clear description:

[blockquote][i]We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/i][/blockquote]And the Declaration of Independence declares that the purpose of government is to safeguard the rights of [i]Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[/i]. Basic healthcare provision is included within both the "general Welfare" and the "pursuit of Happiness". I live in Britain, where the NHS works just fine, as it happens. I'm not suggesting that the US implement a fully fledged NHS (although that, actually, would be a lot more efficient than the current insurance system), but that it provides money to pay for health insurance to the poorest who cannot afford it. That does not amount to socialism--it amounts to general welfare, listed as one of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]Don't confuse radicals with terrorists. I, like most of the US, consider Saddam Hussein to be a radical. It would be more likely that he would launch a nuclear missile at the US than use terrorism, as he would appreciate the noteriety of being the first to attack the US with a nuclear weapon.[/b][hr][/blockquote]I don't deny that he would very much like to launch a nuclear attack on the US. The point is that he would be far more likely to deliver it through the bomb-in-a-suitcase method, than via an ICBM.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]He has the technology, and he most likely has the device itself. It's only a matter of time, unless he is stopped, until he uses it someone, either Israel or the US, most likely.[/b][hr][/blockquote]I would say he probably has [i]atomic[/i] (fission) weapons, but not [i]thermonuclear[/i] (fusion) weapons. However, there's no evidence to indicate that he is in possession of ICBMs. He only has those pitiful, ancient Soviet Scuds, which Israel already has the capability to shoot down.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]Again, poverty and health care should not be the domain of the Federal Government. You may disagree, but many US citizens do not. The government's main priority is to defend it's citizens from outward threats.[/b][hr][/blockquote]I see. So it's acceptable to tax people in order to spend billions on a military system that may well never work, but not to spend money taking the poorest people out of poverty.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]If the MDS can do that, then by all means investigate the technology. Whether or not it has worked yet or not is beside the point, as it has the potential to work in the future.[/b][hr][/blockquote]That's a ridiculous philosophy. By this line of reasoning, it would be beneficial to be able to push the Earth round the solar system at will, so we should spend billions putting rocket engines around the equator, in the hope that it just [i]might[/i] work. The probability of success [i]is[/i] a very pertinent consideration when deciding whether to embark on a project.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]If we as a nation weren't spending so much money on socialist programs, there would be a

 

Hmm. I am disappoined in the tone of your response. Maybe I hit a nerve or two in you, I don't know. I think it's obvious that a debate with you at this point is pointless, because one you're either getting upset or you just have changed and your debate style has gotten snippier, and two we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on just about any of these points. I guess time will tell what happens with the MDS. Talk to ya' later.

 

I've decided to post again despite the harsh tone I am seeing here. I want to be involved in a friendly debate, not a heated argument, so if I feel things get out of hand I am bailing. I have enough stress in my life without getting upset over a discussion on a SW message board.

Well, we obviously have differing opinions about what the purpose of government is. Fortunately, the United States constitution provides a very clear description:


We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And the Declaration of Independence declares that the purpose of government is to safeguard the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Basic healthcare provision is included within both the "general Welfare" and the "pursuit of Happiness". I live in Britain, where the NHS works just fine, as it happens. I'm not suggesting that the US implement a fully fledged NHS (although that, actually, would be a lot more efficient than the current insurance system), but that it provides money to pay for health insurance to the poorest who cannot afford it. That does not amount to socialism--it amounts to general welfare, listed as one of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes.

The bolded parts I did myself, to point out what our Federal Governments primary purposes are. Promoting general welfare does not mean giving money and health care to people. It means ensuring that the people of the US are taken care of to the point that they can take care of themselves, ie protecting them so that they can live in liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness also does not include health care, and I don't really see how that connection was made. The pursuit of happiness means the freedom to worship freely, to work freely, to have taxation with representation, etc.

I know my Constitution and Bill of Rights, I swore a few years ago to lay down my life in the defense of them if I was called to do so. I understand how you might construe those statements to mean what you are saying, but I think you are taking them out of context.

I don't deny that he would very much like to launch a nuclear attack on the US. The point is that he would be far more likely to deliver it through the bomb-in-a-suitcase method, than via an ICBM.

I disagree for the very reason I said in my original post. He may not have the means to launch an ICBM right now, but he is working to get the means, and he will probably succeed. He is a lot more resourceful than a lot of people think. He wants to be known as the guy who launched a nuke at America.

Granted, if a MDS was created, then he would probably use a bomb in a suitcase, but only because he could not launch one.

I would say he probably has atomic (fission) weapons, but not thermonuclear (fusion) weapons. However, there's no evidence to indicate that he is in possession of ICBMs. He only has those pitiful, ancient Soviet Scuds, which Israel already has the capability to shoot down.

See above.

I see. So it's acceptable to tax people in order to spend billions on a military system that may well never work, but not to spend money taking the poorest people out of poverty.

Exactly. May sound cruel, I suppose, but people shouldn't depend on the government to take of them, anyway. Not the Federal Governement, anyway. The State governments are the ones that are supposed to be taking care of the poor, because they are more localized.

I think that maybe you are misunderstanding the way our government works (or is supposed to work), and therefore missing the point I am trying to make. The State governements are free to have State healthcare plans, State welfare and State welfare-to-work programs, much like Texas has. This way the people have more

 

stevo:

You are seriously mistaken as to the purpose of testing weapons systems.

Of course, tests will fail. It's how you eventually get to deploying a reliable system. The AMRAAM had a lot of initial failures. So did the HARM.

Both systems, however, work almost flawlessly today. Much to the distress of those who have gone up against our aircraft equipped with those missiles.

So, don't use the failures against it.

Now, we move on the canard of MAD. Quite frankly, it's little more than extortion writ large, and it is NOT going to be effective against a nation-state that would view those who die resulting from a retaliatory action as martyrs.

I believe they will NOT be deterred by the thought of nukes coming down on their country. I certainly do not want to put all my eggs into that basket. The technology is there, and it's in more areas than just hitting the warheads as they come in. The Airborne Laser program is another part of that technology. So is the Brilliant Pebbles program.

There are probably other black projects in that field that we've not heard about yet.

 

How about this? The Aegis radars we are going to use in the NMD program are faulty. In the late 80's one of those radars mistook a commercial civilian plance for a F-14, and shot it down killing over 280 people.

And even if it does work- We have to decide who we are going to protect. If we protect Isreal but not Pakistan, how is Pakistan gonna react?

 

---

JediStryker:

[b]Hmm. I am disappoined in the tone of your response. Maybe I hit a nerve or two in you, I don't know. I think it's obvious that a debate with you at this point is pointless, because one you're either getting upset or you just have changed and your debate style has gotten snippier, and two we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on just about any of these points. I guess time will tell what happens with the MDS. Talk to ya' later.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Sorry if you thought I was being "snippy". That wasn't intentional! I've been debating with people of quite "harsh" styles recently, so maybe it has rubbed off on me. Sorry once again for any offence!

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]I've decided to post again despite the harsh tone I am seeing here. I want to be involved in a friendly debate, not a heated argument, so if I feel things get out of hand I am bailing. I have enough stress in my life without getting upset over a discussion on a SW message board.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Fair enough. I'll try to moderate my tone, and not get out of hand :)

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]The bolded parts I did myself, to point out what our Federal Governments primary purposes are.[/b][hr][/blockquote]I don't think the Preamble is meant to put the purposes in any particular order, with the Perfect Union most important and the Blessings of Liberty least important. Each purpose is as significant as any of the other purposes.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]Promoting general welfare does not mean giving money and health care to people. It means ensuring that the people of the US are taken care of to the point that they can take care of themselves...[/b][hr][/blockquote]As far as I'm concerned, the denial of basic medical treatment is just as bad as being physically attacked by an enemy from oversees. Let me put it this way: [u]why defend people from bombs and soldiers, but not from diseases?[/u] What especially differentiates the two?

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]...ie protecting them so that they can live in liberty and the pursuit of happiness.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Why does protecting them from tanks fall within this description, but protecting them from bacteria not?

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]I disagree for the very reason I said in my original post. He may not have the means to launch an ICBM right now, but he is working to get the means, and he will probably succeed. He is a lot more resourceful than a lot of people think. He wants to be known as the guy who launched a nuke at America.[/b][hr][/blockquote]And I stand by the very reason I articulated earlier. Saddam would very much--as you say--like to be known as the guy who launched a nuke at America, and he wouldn't much care whether he delivered it by means of an ICBM, or by means of a suitcase.

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]Granted, if a MDS was created, then he would probably use a bomb in a suitcase, but only because he could not launch one.[/b][hr][/blockquote]So wouldn't this lead us to conclude that the MDS is a waste of money, because he'll just use a bomb in a suitcase instead? :D

Your point about the responsibilities of the states, as opposed to the federal government, is a very good one. However, the original issue was whether or not there were better things to spend the money on. So by this line of reasoning, why not spend the money on cutting federal taxes, so that state taxes can be raised, and spent according to the popular will?

[blockquote][hr]JediStryker:

[b]I didn't say that the program had a small possibility of succeeding. I said that the program hadn't worked yet, but earlier I stated that it was my understanding that program showed lots of promise. These are things that I have read in reports and heard in the media. So the probability of success, as far as I understand, is fairly high.[/b][hr][/blockquote]Okay. I thought you were arguing that the probability of success didn't matter, not that the probability of success is high. Do you mind if I take a break to look into this--i.e

 

You all will change your mind when the first hostile missile hits one of our coastal cities or bases.

I for one am all for it. I live on the coast. I live next to a base. And all it takes is Pakistan or India or Russia or China to share or leak their long range ICBMs secrets to Iraq or Iran or any of our other enemies and I won't have a coast or base to live near anymore.

I'd rather take the risk of having the technology and someone testing to see if it works than not having the tecnology and have no defense when some nutcase decides to lob one at us.

 

stevo:

First of all, there has been over a decade of experience since that tragic incident, and lately, the Aegis system has been used quite well in that timeframe.

You're misreading the entire Vincennes incident, in that case. It was a tragic mistake that occured in the middle of a battle. We investigated the incident, by the way, and made reparations for those killed. I'm also pretty sure that we have, since then, upgraded the training.

Also, according to William Crowe, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the tensions in that area were very high, and had been for a while (http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/920722-236124.htm).

Furthermore, what was the CO of Vincennes supposed to do when he had an aircraft closing in on his ship that had ignored NINE warnings? Wait for the plane to pass overhead and not attack him? This was less than three months after the Iranian attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, and the naval-air battle that followed.

We're not even using the Aegis system for the national missile defense. Instead, we're using a ground-based X-band radar. That's an entirely different system than Aegis.

That's not an effective argument against a missile defense system.

 

There will always be a way around it. The Defense system could never be perfect, it couldnt' prevent someone from walking into the middle of Manhattan with a homemade small nuke and setting it off. We'll never be totally safe.


Why don't we use our money to try and solve problems and conflicts that lead to people wanting to blow each other to smithereens. Doesn't that seem a little more productive?

 

DilatedPeoples:

If we can resolve disputes with nations peacefully, great. But I'm not quite ready to get rid of the means to protect this country.

Those who would engage in aggression will attack if they perceive us as weak, either in our capabilities, or our will. And I believe that we create such an impression at our own peril.