17-05-2004 15:59									#181
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Flaw One: Delivery Time If delivery time is that important, the weapon could easily be pre-positioned. It could be sitting in a foreign-registered prop plane on a small Mexican airfield, or in the hold of a small cargo ship anchored just outside Boston harbor. This kind of delivery option is still far cheaper and easier - by orders of magnitude - than developing, deploying and maintaining intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Why are countries like NK developing ICBM's, then?

	17-05-2004 17:40									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Are you saying that NK having a nuke doesn't give them leverage?

To clarify for the n-th time:
NK will get a lot of diplomatic leverage from having a nuke.
US will not get any extra leverage from having a missile shield.

	17-05-2004 18:30									#183
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by CharlesBHoff Tin is than very useful metal that is alloy to other metal to make usefull thing like the metal we use to make election contention stay together with each other. Your hateful plan will never work you just want to isolate the america people from idear like Islam is than peaceful religion which will lead to than world government as the UN is only than temp stop on the way to than world government.

My hateful plan closes some harbors and moves their business to other harbors.

	17-05-2004 22:51									#184
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

edit: add image

Last edited by mindseye on 18-05-2004 at 00:48

	18-05-2004 00:52									#185
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Again, if that is in fact the case, why are they bothering to develop them, and why are they throwing such a fit over our missle defense?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Why are countries like NK developing ICBM's, then?

I think there are a number of motivations.

Firstly, it's an excellent attention-getting bargaining chip. It can certainly bring the Big Guys to the table. Who knows, maybe they’ll even build nuclear power plants in your country for you. It's a respect, prestige and status project, gaining entry for your country into the small and elite club of "nuclear powers". As every Civ2 player can attest, a nuclear sabre to rattle adds to your diplomatic portfolio. Also, exporting the technology or hardware can provide a lovely amount of hard foreign currency, if you need that kind of thing (as NK desperately does).

---

I forgot to address this before ...

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk If you understand that, you will understand why Kim lobs missles over Japan, and not fishing boats.

It was wonderfully ironic that you said this, as North Korea has made extensive use of a different weapon in the waters around Japan: high-speed faux fishing boats, which it uses in its intelligence gathering and espionage operations.

Using a fishing boat for military purposes! What a crazy, unlikely idea, eh?

	18-05-2004 01:48									#186
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by ErikM To clarify for the n-th time: NK will get a lot of diplomatic leverage from having a nuke. US will not get any extra leverage from having a missile shield.

But NK's leverage from getting an ICBM (different from a nuke) will be gone.

	18-05-2004 01:52									#187
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by mindseye I think there are a number of motivations. Firstly, it's an excellent attention-getting bargaining chip. It can certainly bring the Big Guys to the table. Who knows, maybe they’ll even build nuclear power plants in your country for you. It's a respect, prestige and status project, gaining entry for your country into the small and elite club of "nuclear powers". As every Civ2 player can attest, a nuclear sabre to rattle adds to your diplomatic portfolio.

All of which is gone if your ICBM is worthless.

Remember, they're not just trying for nukes, they also want the missiles.

quote: Also, exporting the technology or hardware can provide a lovely amount of hard foreign currency, if you need that kind of thing (as NK desperately does).

And why are those other people trying to get ICBM's?

quote: It was wonderfully ironic that you said this, as North Korea has made extensive use of a different weapon in the waters around Japan: high-speed faux fishing boats, which it uses in its intelligence gathering and espionage operations.

It is wonderfully ironic that you tell us this - it confirms his point. Those are NOT advertised, NOT used as a way to threaten Japan. Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

	18-05-2004 02:12									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

Launching missiles is not merely a gesture.

	18-05-2004 02:32									#189
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When they don't hit anything, it is.

	18-05-2004 08:16									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich But NK's leverage from getting an ICBM (different from a nuke) will be gone.

For the (n+1)st time, for especially gifted: no, it won't be gone because you cannot hit ICBM with a 100% success probability. Is US willing to take a 5% chance that aforementioned ICBM will hit LA? I doubt it, barring Bush reelection or other disasters.

	18-05-2004 09:31									#191
	Support Apolyton

Than better defence might be finding away to generate a field around than area which will make than nuclear explosive inpossible to happen.

	18-05-2004 18:11									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by ErikM For the (n+1)st time, for especially gifted: no, it won't be gone because you cannot hit ICBM with a 100% success probability. Is US willing to take a 5% chance that aforementioned ICBM will hit LA? I doubt it, barring Bush reelection or other disasters.

For the (n+2)nd time, for especially gifted: we're not talking about US leverage.

NK's leverage (from the ICBM) will be gone. The question to ask is "will NK risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 5% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?" (btw, the answer is no.)

The US already isn't going to attack NK because of their conventional arsenal pointed at Seoul.

	18-05-2004 21:21									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich All of which is gone if your ICBM is worthless.

You can still threaten to use the ICBM against other countries (except maybe Canada), you can stilll use it on the US if you use a different delivery platform, you can still use it on US military targets outside the "shield", you can still sell bombs, uranium, or technology, etc.

quote: And why are those other people trying to get ICBM's?

Didn't I just answer that? You even quoted it! Is there some nation developing nuclear weapons that is not interested in prestige, a bargaining chip, foreign currency, sabre rattling, etc?

quote: It is wonderfully ironic that you tell us this - it confirms his point. Those are NOT advertised, NOT used as a way to threaten Japan. Launching the missiles is clearly a threatening gesture.

Wow, when you miss a point, you really miss it.

	18-05-2004 21:31									#194
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich The question to ask is "will NK risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 5% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?" (btw, the answer is no.)

Is the answer different without a "shield"? I.e., do you think NK would risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 99% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?

"Shield" supporters often ignore the existing mechanics of MAD.

	18-05-2004 21:36									#195
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich NK's leverage (from the ICBM) will be gone.

Even if this were true, do you really think it is worth $53B ??

	18-05-2004 22:06									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Is the answer different without a "shield"? I.e., do you think NK would risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 99% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust? "Shield" supporters often ignore the existing mechanics of MAD.

Spot on, Mindsye.

	18-05-2004 22:10									#197
	Full PM-box? Change here!

People can sneak bombs in on fishing boats, on the backs of donkeys, etc.- but we got ways to stop them. They launch a nuke at us though, no shield, no L.A.

Is it $53billion handy? Not by itself, though technological spin offs might make it so.

	18-05-2004 23:30									#198
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Smiley People can sneak bombs in on fishing boats, on the backs of donkeys, etc.- but we got ways to stop them.

As Che already said in this thread,

quote: Originally posted by Che Guevara Despite vastly increased effort, more drugs are being smuggled into the U.S. today than before.

quote: Originally posted by Smiley They launch a nuke at us though, no shield, no L.A.

No L.A., no their homeland. Just which part of this do you think they won't understand?

Seriously, I want an answer. Why do you (or any other shield supporters) think that MAD somehow doesn't apply to "rogue" nuclear states?

quote: Is it $53billion handy? Not by itself, though technological spin offs might make it so.

"Might" make it so. Thanks, I'm feeling a lot better about that fifty-three billion knowing that it might provide a useful spin-off technology. Wait! Wouldn't it maybe be better to invest the $53bn directly into researching those useful spin-off techs? Wouldn't that benefit our country more than spending it on a military system that could be defeated by a ... fishing boat??

I mean, what's the 53 billion get us? In what way are we safer? We wouldn't be safer by spending that $53bn on intelligence against terrorism, or ten new aircraft carriers instead?

	18-05-2004 23:32									#199
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Okay, I just want to check: is anyone still arguing that the missile shield will provide any useful defensive value?

In light of the fact that even a 100% effective shield can be so easily circumvented by land, sea or air (e.g. by semi, small ship, or 2-engine prop plane), it essentially provides no useful defensive value against a determined nuclear attacker, right?

$53 billion is a pretty staggering sum to spend on a defensive system that effectively provides no defensive value.

These missile shield threads all go the same way. Once it's pointed out how easily the US borders are penetrated every day by the drug and illegal alien trades, there's really nothing left to argue. It's Maginot Time.

Last edited by mindseye on 19-05-2004 at 00:51

	19-05-2004 00:32									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich For the (n+2)nd time, for especially gifted: we're not talking about US leverage. NK's leverage (from the ICBM) will be gone. The question to ask is "will NK risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 5% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?" (btw, the answer is no.) The US already isn't going to attack NK because of their conventional arsenal pointed at Seoul.

And why on Earth would NK attack SK with 600,000 SK troop and an American tripwire? And given our nuclear deterrent, what is the point of a missile shiled when NK must be aware is they nuke us, they end up as glass?

No one here pushing for this untested system has yet to make an arguement for why deterence is no longer valid. That 6000 strategic warheads are more than enough a defense against an ICBM launched by a state becuase there is a return address that is known in that case.

Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly.

	19-05-2004 00:34									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

So in the NK example, a real working missile defense would utterly devalue an NK nuclear deterrent, thus giving the US the upper hand to threaten NK with an attack (and a cost free nuclear retaliation if NK bombs Seoul) to force them to do as we want.

The Chinese, who have currently a small strategic arsenal, understand this sort of applies to them as well.

	19-05-2004 00:52									#202
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't really see why NK needs nukes anyway. The way they seem to be armed out the wazoo and all of it pointed at Seoul (who strangely see NK as being less of a threat than the US) kind of makes attacking them foolhardy to begin with.

	19-05-2004 01:05									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Becuase in the end, while their attack would cause massive destruction in SK, at the end even on the conventional end they lose that fight-their equipment is antiquated compared to the US and South Korea, certainly their air defenses would not be able to do much for long against the US and SK- they are vulnerable to cut off if the Chinese simply cut their fuel supplies, and they no longer have Soviet hosts-and NK and China are not so friendly as some people wrongly imagine, plus China and South korea are building closer and closer ties. Add to that that as big as NK army is, SK's military is comparable, and in fact, SK has bigger reserves than NK, simply due to SK having a much larger population and universal male service.

With a nuke to threaten even greater damage they prevent a fight from even starting. Lets not forget the whole gun-ho lets get NK attituted last May.

	19-05-2004 04:11									#204
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by mindseye [q] Originally posted by Kucinich All of which is gone if your ICBM is worthless.

You can still threaten to use the ICBM against other countries (except maybe Canada), you can stilll use it on the US if you use a different delivery platform, you can still use it on US military targets outside the "shield", you can still sell bombs, uranium, or technology, etc.[q/]

This sort of system wouldn't be limited to covering the US. It wouldn't be that difficult to cover our allies, too.

Plus, I bet the US wouldn't be as hesitant if they threatened to blow up, say, Paris

Wrt selling bomgs and uranium - you don't need ICBM tech for that. This is not a deterrent against nukes, it's against ICBM's. And if the ICBM is useless as leverage to NK, it won't be any more useful to Iran or whatever other country would want it, so they wouldn't buy it. And if they DID buy it, whoop-de-doo. It would be useless.

quote: Didn't I just answer that? You even quoted it! Is there some nation developing nuclear weapons that is not interested in prestige, a bargaining chip, foreign currency, sabre rattling, etc?

Didn't I just explain why this would be worthless as such if we could shoot down their missiles?

quote: Wow, when you miss a point, you really miss it.

Touche. Not.

	19-05-2004 04:13									#205
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Is the answer different without a "shield"? I.e., do you think NK would risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 99% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust?

Probably, if we were attacking.

	19-05-2004 04:14									#206
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Even if this were true, do you really think it is worth $53B ??

Sure.

Remember, we get way more than ABM out of this. All of it ends up benefitting the whole country, in the form of new technologies.

	19-05-2004 04:16									#207
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly.

What would be wrong with a US nuclear monopoly

	19-05-2004 10:26									#208
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by GePap Given that fact, the creation of a missile defense system can only be seen as a move to devalue the deterrence value of other arsenals and allow the US a freer hand. The same people rushing this project are the ones envisioning the use of nukes vs Bunker and other "tactical" uses, and who have wetdreams about a US nuclear monopoly. What would be wrong with a US nuclear monopoly

Are you total supid man or than Bush Strom Trooper. First I beleive that China, and Russia will launch than attack on use before we can full employ than ABM system. The MAD complex kept the peace for 54 years there was no gobal World War like WWII. World WAr II started about 20 year after WWI ended.
American people are afraid to die to keep gobal peace in case our evil government decide to started WWIII. Than ABM system isnot than defensive system it is than offenseive system. In some culture wear weapons at social event was allow as everone wore weapons on they person. But no one was allow to wear weapon and armour at socical event as the wearing of armour was seeing as you have hostile intention. In some cities there where law that forbit the wearing of armour while staying in the cities, city guard while on duty where allow to wear armour with weapon. Traveller to the cities where given time to find than place to stay than remore they armour.

	20-05-2004 00:50									#209
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich This sort of system wouldn't be limited to covering the US. It wouldn't be that difficult to cover our allies, too.

First off, I don't recall any plan from the administration to extend the shield over its allies, much less any other possible target. Can you elaborate?

More importantly, why do you think that the US and its allies are the only nations anyone would target with a nuclear missile? Will the shield be extended to cover Pakistan, for example?

quote: Wrt selling bomgs and uranium - you don't need ICBM tech for that. This is not a deterrent against nukes, it's against ICBM's.

Sorry, my bad. Scratch "uranium". Bombs and technology still stand however. There is a large and lucrative world market for missiles and missile tech. Just ask the North Koreans. Remember what was hidden in the hold of that ship intercepted on its way to Yemen about a year ago?

quote: And if the ICBM is useless as leverage to NK, it won't be any more useful to Iran or whatever other country would want it, so they wouldn't buy it. And if they DID buy it, whoop-de-doo. It would be useless.

"Whoop-de-doo"? Your argument seems to assume that the only reason anyone would build an ICBM is to use it against the US, or as a bargaining chip with the US.

Perhaps you have already forgotten Monk's remark about lobbing a missile over Japan, for example.

quote: Didn't I just explain why this would be worthless as such if we could shoot down their missiles?

Actually, you didn't. You only addressed two items on the list: use against other targets (which you mistakenly assumed must be US allies), and uranium sales.

You didn't address other motives such as prestige, bargaining chip, arms and technology sales, attacks on US military targets outside the shield.

quote: Touche. Not.

Wow, that was erudite. Do you really need for me to explain the irony of his reference to fishing boats? I was hoping to save the keystrokes.

	20-05-2004 00:56									#210
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by mindseye Is the answer different without a "shield"? I.e., do you think NK would risk being turned into radioactive dust for a 99% chance of turning Seattle into radioactive dust? Probably, if we were attacking.

If we were attacking, why wouldn't we just pre-emptively take out their ICBMs before they launch? A lot easier and cheaper than erecting a Maginot missile shield.