NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041019-missile-defense.htm
Apperantly, some star power is backing Star Wars. For missile defense critics, does this sway your opinion at all?
I know that this may be stupid, but I wanted to talk about something other than that goddamn election.

they need some higher recognition stars than THAT

when they get brittney spears and aston kutcher signed up THEN they might sway public opinion

they need some higher recognition stars than THAT

when they get brittney spears and aston kutcher signed up THEN they might sway public opinion
I doubt it. A-rated celebrities do promos for companies only for the right price.

Apperantly, some star power is backing Star Wars. I know that this may be stupid, but I wanted to talk about something other than that goddamn election.
Meh, Star Wars was the biggest load of BS of a defense system. What next, we're gonna be building mechas for our soldiers to pilot?

Meh, Star Wars was the biggest load of BS of a defense system. What next, we're gonna be building mechas for our soldiers to pilot?
It's more of a reality by now. And it is needed, I think. Terrorists do not possess missiles themselves, but they may control rogue states that do. I'm sure it's not out of the realm of possibility to see a terrorist overthrow in a state like Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan.

It's more of a reality by now. And it is needed, I think. Terrorists do not possess missiles themselves, but they may control rogue states that do. I'm sure it's not out of the realm of possibility to see a terrorist overthrow in a state like Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are very unlikely to be overthrown by terrorists, although they are questionable allies, the governing body is still stable and no country would attack the United states, the problem would be having a military base over run tat has the ability to launch ICBM's, but even that is highly unlikely and thus "Star Wars" would be the biggest waste of money. We don't need to worry as much about missiles as we do bombs being brought into the country and then detonated. The way wars are being fought is changing and we must look at what the threats really are.

theres no way terrorist's could over throw the saud's! guess who's best friends with the holy desert,oil infested nation...AMERICA. Theres no chance that the sauds are going down.

No.

A MDS is low on my set of priorities. If we are ever attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction, it will be by a terrorist nuclear briefcase bomb, or some small portable thing. A Star Wars program will not keep us safe from that. Just one more misguided Bush policy.

theres no way terrorist's could over throw the saud's! guess who's best friends with the holy desert,oil infested nation...AMERICA. Theres no chance that the sauds are going down.

Don't be so sure. We backed the government of South Vietnam, going so far as to deploy aircraft, troops, tanks, etc to fight in their country. And yet we lost the Vietnam War despite all that support.

Riki Ellison and Skunk Baxter? LOL

Seriously though, the system isn't flawed so much as we just don't have the technology yet to make it work. We know what we want to do--we just don't know quite how to do it, and installing missiles in Alaska and claiming we have a system doesn't change that fact in the slightest.

Riki Ellison and Skunk Baxter? LOL

Seriously though, the system isn't flawed so much as we just don't have the technology yet to make it work. We know what we want to do--we just don't know quite how to do it, and installing missiles in Alaska and claiming we have a system doesn't change that fact in the slightest.
But it is a small part of our annual defense budget, and is certainly farther along than twenty years ago. It'd be farther today had Bush I not halted research.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are very unlikely to be overthrown by terrorists, although they are questionable allies, the governing body is still stable and no country would attack the United states, the problem would be having a military base over run tat has the ability to launch ICBM's, but even that is highly unlikely and thus "Star Wars" would be the biggest waste of money. We don't need to worry as much about missiles as we do bombs being brought into the country and then detonated. The way wars are being fought is changing and we must look at what the threats really are.
I find it possible that terrorists could overthrow the two. For one, both nations have large numbers of people supporting al-Qaeda.

Well, as far as I see there are only two ways in which the USA would be attacked by nuclear missiles.

1.) A terrorist smuggles in some uranium and makes a "dirty bomb" or some other kind of suitcase device that cannot be stopped by an anti-missile system.

2.) A hostile state launches an sll-out nuclear assault, using multiple MIRV-warheads, nukes dropped/shot from airplanes and submarines. This assault will overwhelm any anti-missile system anyway and such a system will make no real difference in the end.

In either case an anti-missile system will be of no use whatsoever and as building such a system is a sure way to make countries like Russia and China feel insecure about their safety I see no benefits stemming from anti-missile defences. If you can read Finnish, I can recommend a book called "Ydinsotatieto", it describes what could have happened in a cold-war situation.

Well, as far as I see there are only two ways in which the USA would be attacked by nuclear missiles.

1.) A terrorist smuggles in some uranium and makes a "dirty bomb" or some other kind of suitcase device that cannot be stopped by an anti-missile system.

2.) A hostile state launches an sll-out nuclear assault, using multiple MIRV-warheads, nukes dropped/shot from airplanes and submarines. This assault will overwhelm any anti-missile system anyway and such a system will make no real difference in the end.

In either case an anti-missile system will be of no use whatsoever and as building such a system is a sure way to make countries like Russia and China feel insecure about their safety I see no benefits stemming from anti-missile defences. If you can read Finnish, I can recommend a book called "Ydinsotatieto", it describes what could have happened in a cold-war situation.
I believe that, if anything, it'll merely touch off a small arms race. China and Russia have the know-how and the resources (at least China does) to build one of their own. At any rate, I don't see why they need to fear it. The US is an ally of Russia, and is far too economically tied to China to risk a war.
But as for praticality, I believe that a missile shield is never a bad idea. Homemade Qassam rockets with a range of about twenty miles are already made by Palestinians, and being fired into Israeli territory. Ballistic missiles are obviously far more sophisticated, but if they had the resources, I bet they could make one. An overthrow of a state to turn it into a terrorist one should not be ruled out. A missile threat may even come from regimes that are not part of the Arab/Muslim world, but still rogue, like North Korea, or perhaps a sub-Saharan African state (many with comparable economies, btw).

The missle defense sheild program will not be too useful as a functional asset. However, it will be a godsend to the US diplomatic effort, as it will now have technology and infrastructure to install such sheilds for allies, provided the US gets a stronger alliane and perhaps a reward. It will also have dual use as an ASAT system: If the US have arms in space first, they will more likely be able to destroy hostile sattilites sooner should it ever be needed.

The missle defense sheild program will not be too useful as a functional asset. However, it will be a godsend to the US diplomatic effort, as it will now have technology and infrastructure to install such sheilds for allies, provided the US gets a stronger alliane and perhaps a reward. It will also have dual use as an ASAT system: If the US have arms in space first, they will more likely be able to destroy hostile sattilites sooner should it ever be needed.
In fact, the government is planning to extend the shield to Japan, and possibly Taiwan. Australia has been the first nation to say it'll cooperate with the US on a shield, so it may be a possible launch site.
There has also been talk of a future site in either the Czech Republic, Hungary, or Romania. That should shield most of Europe, and even Eastern Russia from an attack.

No.

A MDS is low on my set of priorities. If we are ever attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction, it will be by a terrorist nuclear briefcase bomb, or some small portable thing. A Star Wars program will not keep us safe from that. Just one more misguided Bush policy.
You realize a briefcase bomb would have to weight about 100 pounds to be effective? Try carrying that bad boy around for more than 2 mins.

You realize a briefcase bomb would have to weight about 100 pounds to be effective? Try carrying that bad boy around for more than 2 mins.
I sling beer kegs around for 6 to 7 hours a day at work--they're 140 lbs when full. It wouldn't be easy, but it would certainly be doable, especially if it were disguised as a piece of luggage on wheels.

I sling beer kegs around for 6 to 7 hours a day at work--they're 140 lbs when full. It wouldn't be easy, but it would certainly be doable, especially if it were disguised as a piece of luggage on wheels.
However, as radiation detection improves, I doubt that a suitcase bomb would be pratical to either bring into the country, or assemble here. There are some very cheap and very small radiation sensors in developement, and I have few doubts they'll be in every city (and quite a few towns) in the next couple of years. Security like this has already improved exponetentially.

However, as radiation detection improves, I doubt that a suitcase bomb would be pratical to either bring into the country, or assemble here. There are some very cheap and very small radiation sensors in developement, and I have few doubts they'll be in every city (and quite a few towns) in the next couple of years. Security like this has already improved exponetentially.
To the contrary, I think it would be pretty simple to get a bomb into a major city and dentonate it. The hard part would be getting it into the country or building it here. If the officials in a city have no reason to suspect a nuke is in their city, do you really think they'll have every cop walking around all day with their radiation scanners on? And that's assuming that the technology does become that widespread. There are tons of places to hide a bomb in major cities.

Edit - Dah, I'm an idiot. I didn't read your post carefully enough. My bad.
And for the record, I think the missile defense system idea is pretty worthless, but I would be hesitant to stop research completely on it.

To the contrary, I think it would be pretty simple to get a bomb into a major city and dentonate it. The hard part would be getting it into the country or building it here. If the officials in a city have no reason to suspect a nuke is in their city, do you really think they'll have every cop walking around all day with their radiation scanners on? And that's assuming that the technology does become that widespread. There are tons of places to hide a bomb in major cities.

Edit - Dah, I'm an idiot. I didn't read your post carefully enough. My bad.
And for the record, I think the missile defense system idea is pretty worthless, but I would be hesitant to stop research completely on it.
Well, the technology I was alluding to is new: small wires that sniff the air for radiation, and chemical and germ poisoning. They cost $1,000, compared to big, bulky scanners that cost up to $100,000.
And you're right on the missile shield, though I believe you have the wrong conclusion. A threat will arise with missiles one day, but we can't be naive. We must build the damn thing!

Well, the technology I was alluding to is new: small wires that sniff the air for radiation, and chemical and germ poisoning. They cost $1,000, compared to big, bulky scanners that cost up to $100,000.
And you're right on the missile shield, though I believe you have the wrong conclusion. A threat will arise with missiles one day, but we can't be naive. We must build the damn thing!Assuming that the threat will exist one day, that's no reason to install something that doesn't work right now. Continue the research, continue the testing, whatever--but don't install missiles in Alaska and then act like we've got a defense system. We're spending money we don't have on a system that doesn't work. We can afford the research, but the system itself is a waste right now, and everyone knows it.

Let's not forget the last test they did, where they sent two dummy missiles airborn and ran out of missiles to shoot them down with before hitting the second. Thus, the joke that all China has to do to exterminate Americans after the system is in place is launch two nukes at each city.

The point: It doesn't work. Plus, shooting it down in that way may set off the nuke anyway, if the launchers are smart enough.

Assuming that the threat will exist one day, that's no reason to install something that doesn't work right now. Continue the research, continue the testing, whatever--but don't install missiles in Alaska and then act like we've got a defense system. We're spending money we don't have on a system that doesn't work. We can afford the research, but the system itself is a waste right now, and everyone knows it.
Yeah, but an element of diplomacy exists here. Part of the reason the Soviet defense budget went bonkers in the 1980s was because they truely believed the US could build Star Wars in just a few years. This shows countries like North Korea that we have detterrance, even if we really don't. It's a strategy the US loves to use, and I can think of plenty of recent examples of it.

Let's not forget the last test they did, where they sent two dummy missiles airborn and ran out of missiles to shoot them down with before hitting the second. Thus, the joke that all China has to do to exterminate Americans after the system is in place is launch two nukes at each city.

The point: It doesn't work. Plus, shooting it down in that way may set off the nuke anyway, if the launchers are smart enough.
But military science is advancing very rapidly. More research has been done in the past twenty years than in all of the previous years of American military history. The Pentagon is researching both laser and space weapons, and according to Popular Science, aircraft-mounted laser weaponry may come in less than fifteen years, if funding isn't interrupted. I'm just saying that military research is lightyears ahead of us.