15-05-2004 19:38									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Part and parcel of that is the ability to deliver it in such a manner that it unmistakably came from you. A theat that cannot be credited to you is no threat at all.

So if a nuclear bomb goes off in New York, Washington, Los Angeles or wherever, but no-one knows who's responsible, then its not a real threat?

	15-05-2004 19:42									#122
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Whoha The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched. Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?

The Viking sail across the North Altanic ocean in long ship with the hull being 1 to 3 ft above the water. They found colonies in Iceland, Greenland and New Foundland. Thaqn they where smaller than fishing boat.

	15-05-2004 19:51									#123
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

When gun appear in the 15th century able to penerate any armour that than man can wear. Armour maker make than armour that stop all bullet of it time but it cost 10000 dollar in today money to buy, it weight about 150 to 200 ibs to wear you where unable to do any fast movement of your hands and your hands only did basely movernment very clumdry. Very view brought this armour. The either wore than light breastplate able to defense against sword cut and depence on movenment quickly and taken cover to protect then self against firearm.

	15-05-2004 19:52									#124
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin So if a nuclear bomb goes off in New York, Washington, Los Angeles or wherever, but no-one knows who's responsible, then its not a real threat?

How would we know who was ticked off? There are so many, you know.

	15-05-2004 19:54									#125
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

In other words, how does a completely anonymous attack benefit the attacker? How would it be used as leverage? What benefit would it have?

	15-05-2004 19:56									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If you understand that, you will understand why Kim lobs missles over Japan, and not fishing boats.

	15-05-2004 20:47									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

While the shield might turn effective some day, I think it protects from the wrong kind of threat.

It is much more likely IMO that terrorists sneak a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb into the united states and let it explode there than that they'll launch it into space.
I do not think any state will launch a nuclear strike against the US. It would be a total suicide mission not only for themselves but for their people as well. Considering what Kim Jong thinks of his oh-so great country I dont think he'll ever commit such a step.

The main threat are terrorist organizations who have proven a lot of times that their own life does not matter much to them. But it is very unlikely terrorists can gain hold of a missle silo and the launch codes and even more know how to program these.

	15-05-2004 20:48									#128
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk In other words, how does a completely anonymous attack benefit the attacker? How would it be used as leverage? What benefit would it have?

So your argument is that we don't need to worry about nuclear bombs coming into ports because no-one can claim responsibility?

All they have to do is say is "A nuclear bomb is going to be detonated on your homeland in the next hour" and that would be pretty conclusive evidence.

	15-05-2004 20:49									#129
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by mindseye quote: Originally posted by Whoha There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US though, you should know that. Shipping a nuclear weapon would be much easier. You only have to get a vessel into the harbor or near the coast.

All Targets of interest are not near the coast. And as previously stated, with the correct trade/immigration policies this is not an issue.

quote: quote: You absolutely must get your money's worth with an atomic bomb. Own goal! That's precisely why a missile shield is useless. If the US erects a credible missile shield, who is going to waste the enormous resources required to build an ICBM that will likely go splat against a shield and waste their warhead? They will simply use another delivery system, a delivery system likely to be much cheaper to deploy, much harder for the US to detect, and not leave a tell-tale pointer directly back to the place of origin (as a missile trajectory does). Vaporized ships leave few clues. Better to let them build the ICBMs, which will waste more of their limited resources, and are easier for the US to detect, monitor, and destroy pre-emptively if necessary.

Missiles are reliable, smuggling is not. How do you know the smuggler won't turn it over to us? They aren't the most reliable business partners as stuff from a couple of months ago with the smugglers holding onto children showed. And all ships are registered, all ships have ports they were just in,etc,etc,etc. This kind of detective work is done.


[QUOTE

quote: With the correct trade/immigration policies we could reduce that to 0% easy, its a totally different problem from blocking an ICBM, which has a 100% chance of hitting its target if they pointed it in the right direction.

Huh? 100% chance? Designing, building, testing, deploying and maintaining an ICBM is a lot harder than deploying a container ship (which you don't even need to build, you can use another nation's).
The kind of enemies that the "shield" is supposed to protect against are not likely to be able to afford the scores of test launches required to assure anything near 100% success rate. Just look at how many rocket failures nations like US, Japan, China, etc have experienced. And if they are able to build that many launchers, they can easily overwhelm the shield anyway.
[/QUOTE]
They can buy missiles from NK as well,everyone that has gone to the expense to develop the bomb has so far also developed and purchased missiles to hit whatever target they set up.

Right now we only have about 10 interceptors, that can and most likely will be ramped up, but before then maintaining the weapons is expensive, so the kind of target we are talking about, like NK with missile tech and a few bombs, would not be able to overload it.

quote: quote: and hey your analogy is good as well, people charging you with swords are pretty damned easy to take out Sorry, try again. In a room where lots of people are carrying swords around everyday, it would be darn hard to spot a stealthy attacker. A Liberian-registered container ship or Panamanian fishing vessel sailing into New York or LA harbor isn't going to attract much attention. For that matter, a weapon could be pre-positioned far in advance. One could be sitting in the hold of an innocuous ship anchored near Seattle right now. Summary: the billions spent on the "shield" are utterly wasted in terms of improving our national security. They get us nothing, other than persuading enemies to use cheaper - and possibly more effective - alternatives to ICBMS.

Like I said, correct trade policy. Then having ships pull into ports that aren't basically the middle of nowhere,etc WOULD draw attention to themselves(it would also be a nice subsidy to have delivery to where ever intra-US handled by US deliverers...) And once those measures are taken, then thats that it has to be a missile delivery.

Summary:We really have wasted trillions of dollars on worthless pursuits, we spend 700 billion over what we take in, we have a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, 2.5 trillion dollars worth of property has been sold off to pay for that deficit, 50 billion doesn't even rank. If it wasn't for the space program, or missile defense, or the ENTIRE military spending all of our problems would go away, right? We could afford to finally eliminate poverty, right? Wrong, the amount we spend on these programs is less then any of those numbers I mentioned up there.

	15-05-2004 23:20									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin So your argument is that we don't need to worry about nuclear bombs coming into ports because no-one can claim responsibility? All they have to do is say is "A nuclear bomb is going to be detonated on your homeland in the next hour" and that would be pretty conclusive evidence.

No I'm saying that the purpose of the shield is to pull the teeth of leaders like Kim who think a nuke will give them leverage diplomatically. Take away that leverage, and you take away their reason for getting one.

	16-05-2004 00:58									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Whoha The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Yeah, becuase everyone knows fishing boats can't go into deep water and that the U.S. tracks every one of the tens of thousnads of "non-ocean-going" boats. This, of course, is why nothing gets smuggled into the United States.

	16-05-2004 01:32									#132
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US.

People and equipment get stopped all the time. The people that do the smuggling aren't the most reliable characters on earth, and so on and so forth.

	16-05-2004 01:36									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Nothing's 100%, not even ICBMs.

	16-05-2004 01:46									#134
	Got spare money?

ICBMs have a lot better shot at landing then smuggling something in though, especially if we take the appropriate stances regarding trade and immigration(examples of which are listed out in the past 5 or so posts I've made on thsi matter).

	16-05-2004 03:07									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think a "missile shield" is an integral part of a complete and effective nuclear/chemical/biological defense. I also think it unwise to deploy a system the functionality of which is almost completely untested. Continued research into the field is certainly desirable, but deployment now is a waste of money.

	16-05-2004 05:29									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kirnwaffen understands.

	16-05-2004 05:33									#137
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Whoha ICBMs have a lot better shot at landing then smuggling something in though, especially if we take the appropriate stances regarding trade and immigration(examples of which are listed out in the past 5 or so posts I've made on thsi matter).

Mmmm, yes, better immigration and trade policy, you haven't got a clue what it would really take to police borders as big as we have. Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before. You think it's in anyway difficult to smuggle a bomb in? Maybe it's not as good a chance as with an ICBM, unless it's a North Korean ICBM, which isn't very accurate, but it's still better than even odds it's getting in.

	16-05-2004 08:13									#138
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk No I'm saying that the purpose of the shield is to pull the teeth of leaders like Kim who think a nuke will give them leverage diplomatically. Take away that leverage, and you take away their reason for getting one.

Ah, but it has already been shown that it is not the delivery vehicle that is the threat. Regardless how the device is delivered, it is still the threat.

	16-05-2004 08:15									#139
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Whoha All Targets of interest are not near the coast. And as previously stated, with the correct trade/immigration policies this is not an issue.

Are you positively sure that none of the, uh, "rogue nations" is interested in blowing up NYC or LA?

	16-05-2004 08:20									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Mmmm, yes, better immigration and trade policy, you haven't got a clue what it would really take to police borders as big as we have. Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before. You think it's in anyway difficult to smuggle a bomb in? Maybe it's not as good a chance as with an ICBM, unless it's a North Korean ICBM, which isn't very accurate, but it's still better than even odds it's getting in.

Wall/mines everything but a few entry points :P

Seriously though, every time a serious effort has been made to enforce the border, it has worked.

	16-05-2004 14:11									#141
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Whoha Wall/mines everything but a few entry points :P Seriously though, every time a serious effort has been made to enforce the border, it has worked.

Only for ashort time. It like than unpopular to the dumb america people leader like Castor visit the UN the NYC can put thousand's of extras police on duty for ashort while by put cop from other duties, pay extras for overtime duty. To close our border to cause econcial harm to america also as we now have 90% of our comuser good make oversea, we needed to import certain raw material (like Tin, oil, steels, ores for many metals we use).

	16-05-2004 15:56									#142
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Ah, but it has already been shown that it is not the delivery vehicle that is the threat. Regardless how the device is delivered, it is still the threat.

Did you miss my other two posts? It is not a usable threat unless it can be connected to them. That's what gives them diplomatic teeth.

	16-05-2004 16:05									#143
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would think it quite easy to connect it to the perpetrator, especially if they wanted it to be connected to them.

	16-05-2004 17:07									#144
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger This bit is going to be really, really, really tough to pull off.

But you make it sound so easy.

quote: I've got a nuclear device in the hold of my fishing boat and you are trying to catch me? You know, this thing could go boom at the wrong time.

(Or not go off at all. Annoying things, these nukes.)

quote: The best you could do is to try to sink the boat before it gets to the destination.

In other words, it's the only thing you bothered to think up so you could easily dismiss any opposition to your brilliant plan. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, one might want to do other things like, oh.... find out who sent it? Figure out what harbors it's chugged into in the past? Little things like that.

	16-05-2004 20:23									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin I would think it quite easy to connect it to the perpetrator, especially if they wanted it to be connected to them.

Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

Besides, if the FBOD would work so much better and easier than ICBMs, why are nations like North Korea, Syria, and Iran commiting so much of their meager resources to developing ICBMs?

Like I said, Kim isn't lobbing fishing boats over Japan.

	16-05-2004 21:34									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by CharlesBHoff Only for ashort time. It like than unpopular to the dumb america people leader like Castor visit the UN the NYC can put thousand's of extras police on duty for ashort while by put cop from other duties, pay extras for overtime duty. To close our border to cause econcial harm to america also as we now have 90% of our comuser good make oversea, we needed to import certain raw material (like Tin, oil, steels, ores for many metals we use).

about the only thing that we need to import is oil, for now. Now as I stated, my plan isn't to end all trade, it is to have all goods come into a few remote ports, and from there have intra-US deliverers send it to whatever wallmart its headed to.

	16-05-2004 22:20									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yep, you're either clueless or insane.

	16-05-2004 22:31									#148
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sinapus (Or not go off at all. Annoying things, these nukes.)

It's also possible that a very large asteroid will strike Earth in the next hour, wiping out 99% of the lifeforms. The mechanics of a nuclear device is so simple that the chance of it not going boom when asked to is practically nil.

I don't think anybody is going to gamble on the chance of a nuclear device not working.

quote: Originally posted by Sinapus In other words, it's the only thing you bothered to think up so you could easily dismiss any opposition to your brilliant plan. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, one might want to do other things like, oh.... find out who sent it? Figure out what harbors it's chugged into in the past? Little things like that.

Oh really? I bet that the people behind the scene would have never thought about these things.

Besides, a vapourised boat does not provide much to work on.

	16-05-2004 22:38									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

As BC said before, the side that predicted the event in advance.

	16-05-2004 22:39									#150
	Inflate your Upload Space

Closing trade? In Civ terms, it would be the difference between demo and commie in terms of income....

If one have 53bil, one would be better off investing in boarder control which is a threat now and here, with benefits visible the second something goes though, rather than something that protects against no real threat now and very few in the future.

quote: Only if there aren't competing interests that also want to take credit (or frame another group for it), and with several claims, and the evidence site a cloud of incandescent vapor, who can say which claim is correct?

It is petty easy to leave a trail if you intend to. The attacker can even broadcast the event live on to make it public.

quote: Besides, if the FBOD would work so much better and easier than ICBMs, why are nations like North Korea, Syria, and Iran commiting so much of their meager resources to developing ICBMs?

The problem with smuggling is that it is not as effective as a defensive deterent. Also ICBMs are prestige projects.