NationStates Jolt Archive


Would it be more ethical?

Deep Kimchi
04-08-2006, 22:24
To implement a system that shoots down Katushyas (and mortar shells, and larger rockets) in flight?

Rather than invading someone to stop them from firing?

Such a system exists, THEL, as a successful prototype.

MTHEL, the mobile version, is still being tested. In this link, it works against the larger rockets of the type that Hezbollah is firing now.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04g.html

It is slated to go into service in Israel in 2007.

After that, Hezbollah will have to fire spitballs - they won't be able to fire rockets that cost more to launch than they do to shoot down, especially if the rockets never arrive on target.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 22:28
It would certainly be more ethical, but I doubt that any country would put up with rockets fired at its territory, be they shot down or not.
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 22:29
To implement a system that shoots down Katushyas (and mortar shells, and larger rockets) in flight?

Rather than invading someone to stop them from firing?

Such a system exists, THEL, as a successful prototype.

MTHEL, the mobile version, is still being tested. In this link, it works against the larger rockets of the type that Hezbollah is firing now.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04g.html

It is slated to go into service in Israel in 2007.

After that, Hezbollah will have to fire spitballs - they won't be able to fire rockets that cost more to launch than they do to shoot down, especially if the rockets never arrive on target.
I'm highly dubious as to the effectiveness of this system, but it would just be a temporary solution. No amount of sophisticated technology can defeat an organization whose primary purpose is to drive the Jews out of Israel.
Philosopy
04-08-2006, 22:29
Why would it be unethical to stop people from being shot?
UpwardThrust
04-08-2006, 22:30
I think it will be a good system that will reduce the immediacy of the situation and let isreal deal with the Hez in a mannor that reduces civilian casualties


seems to be a good thing to me
Call to power
04-08-2006, 22:31
I wonder how many South Korea will buy and if that means war will become more likely

edit: I think the system will be rendered useless after the first few days as would be attackers just think of new things (maybe it’s the plan make Israel spend millions on weapons it wont use)
Kazus
04-08-2006, 22:32
Why would it be unethical to stop people from being shot?

While Israel may stop their own people from being shot, they will probably continue shooting other people.
Philosopy
04-08-2006, 22:34
While Israel may stop their own people from being shot, they will probably continue shooting other people.
That doesn't make it unethical to stop people being shot. And seeing as Israel is currently marching into Lebanon, the concept of a conventional warfare MAD hardly applies.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 22:35
I wonder how many South Korea will buy and if that means war will become more likely
If anything it will mean war becomes less likely. Look at who wants peace and who's rattling sabres. S. Korea wants N. Korea as a source for cheap labor. If they went to war and conquered the North they would only have a massive, poor population that would eat up funds for rebuilding it's infrastructure and feeding it's starving masses. Lil Kim, on the other hand, is constantly threatening war.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 22:36
While Israel may stop their own people from being shot, they will probably continue shooting other people.
Really? Who started this current conflict? Oh, right, a couple of Israeli troops forced Hezbollah to capture them in a devious zionist plot to kill Lebanese.
Kazus
04-08-2006, 22:38
Really? Who started this current conflict? Oh, right, a couple of Israeli troops forced Hezbollah to capture them in a devious zionist plot to kill Lebanese.

Israel started it by sending soldiers into Lebanon, where they were captured. So your sarcastic comment does in fact have some merit.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 22:40
Israel started it by sending soldiers into Lebanon, where they were captured. So your sarcastic comment does in fact have some merit.
Since when? I'm pretty sure the soldiers were on the Israeli side of the border.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 22:41
Israel started it by sending soldiers into Lebanon, where they were captured. So your sarcastic comment does in fact have some merit.Can you prove that? To my knowledge, it was a raid within Israel's borders.
Alleghany County
04-08-2006, 22:41
It will be a wise system to buy and implement.
Call to power
04-08-2006, 22:41
If anything it will mean war becomes less likely. Look at who wants peace and who's rattling sabres. S. Korea wants N. Korea as a source for cheap labor. If they went to war and conquered the North they would only have a massive, poor population that would eat up funds for rebuilding it's infrastructure and feeding it's starving masses. Lil Kim, on the other hand, is constantly threatening war.

what I'm thinking is South Korea will now be confident in its security and will use its military to influence N.Korean politics by assassinating politicians S.Korea doesn’t like (namely Mr Kim) and using quick strikes to destroy anything N.Korea has that S,korea doesn’t want it too have
Alleghany County
04-08-2006, 22:42
Israel started it by sending soldiers into Lebanon, where they were captured. So your sarcastic comment does in fact have some merit.

Oh brother. Nice warp view of history you have there as it has been proven (even by Hezbollah) that they were indeed captured on Israeli soil.
Llewdor
04-08-2006, 22:42
Who started this current conflict?
The UN drew some lines on a map in 1947.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 22:44
The UN drew some lines on a map in 1947.
Fuckin' UN. Can we go to war with the UN?
Alleghany County
04-08-2006, 22:44
what I'm thinking is South Korea will now be confident in its security and will use its military to influence N.Korean politics by assassinating politicians S.Korea doesn’t like (namely Mr Kim) and using quick strikes to destroy anything N.Korea has that S,korea doesn’t want it too have

Doubtful for that most assuredly will start a war. No South Korea will not tod that.
Philosopy
04-08-2006, 22:44
Fuckin' UN. Can we go to war with the UN?
You're already at war with them. They've invaded New York - didn't you notice?
Sane Outcasts
04-08-2006, 22:45
Fuckin' UN. Can we go to war with the UN?
We'd only be making war on ourselves.
Alleghany County
04-08-2006, 22:45
Fuckin' UN. Can we go to war with the UN?

Hey why not! We know where their Headquarters is at. Just use the NYPD to take it :D
Call to power
04-08-2006, 22:51
Doubtful for that most assuredly will start a war. No South Korea will not tod that.

doubt it North Korea won't be able to do a damn thing to anyone if there artillery and missile threat is neutralised thus they becomes the worlds bitch (not a soul will stand up for them either)
Sinuhue
04-08-2006, 23:14
Lil Kim, on the other hand, is constantly threatening war.
What??? Why haven't I ever heard of this before? There has been NO news coverage of Lil Kim (http://www.lilkim.com/) threatening war!! I'm OUTRAGED!
Llewdor
04-08-2006, 23:17
Fuckin' UN. Can we go to war with the UN?
No, but you could stop supporting them. Withdraw from the UN.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 23:18
What??? Why haven't I ever heard of this before? There has been NO news coverage of Lil Kim (http://www.lilkim.com/) threatening war!! I'm OUTRAGED!
Sorry. I meant The Littlest Kim. I've got an old issue of Mother Jones that compares Lil Kim to Kim Jong Il to see who's the illest Kim.
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 23:19
No, but you could stop supporting them. Withdraw from the UN.
No, it's ok. I'm wearing a rubber. Let me finish up inside.
Sinuhue
04-08-2006, 23:19
Sorry. I meant The Littlest Kim. I've got an old issue of Mother Jones that compares Lil Kim to Kim Jong Il to see who's the illest Kim.
Who won?
Sinuhue
04-08-2006, 23:20
No, it's ok. I'm wearing a rubber. Let me finish up inside.
Holy freaking Hannah that slayed me!
Drunk commies deleted
04-08-2006, 23:29
Who won?
Kim Jong Il. He's got a pretty extravagant lifestyle. Hell, the cognac he drinks makes Lil Kim's Cristal look like a cheap bottle of night train.
Deep Kimchi
04-08-2006, 23:35
No, but you could stop supporting them. Withdraw from the UN.
The Russians left the room for a minute in the 1950s, and look what happened.

Spooge everywhere, and North Korea still laying there today, asking for someone to finish her off.
Neu Leonstein
05-08-2006, 01:49
It should certainly form one part of a larger strategy to settle all this.

Ethics aside, I don't think Hezbollah can be wiped out. They were on the way to fading out of existence since people didn't see their usefulness anymore, but this whole affair has put them back in the driver's seat.

A large DMZ, controlled by a UN Force needs to be implemented. The anti-missile systems add to that.

Then some serious dialogues with Syria need to happen (I don't think Iran would be reasonable enough to talk to Israel). If Syria doesn't help out Hezbollah and other such groups anymore, they lose a lot of their bite. It's possible, look at Egypt.

And finally, once the Lebanese government is over all this (and that could take a while :( ) they need to have a look at returning to the negotiations to turn Hezbollah from a militia into a political party.
Surf Shack
05-08-2006, 01:51
There is plenty of precedence for this kind of system. I know in the US we had the Patriot missiles, etc.

Also, we had that ridiculous "Star Wars" system lol