 |
| |
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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.
|
A nuke doesn't change the equation all that much. The devestation an invasion pre-nuke would have been horriffic due to the ROK capital being so close to the DMZ. The only way anybody does anything militarially against them is if the DPRK forces the hand of the West, ie by selling nukes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
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? |
You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up.
quote:
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? |
Why would we bother?
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. |
quote:
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? |
And that market for ICBM (more than just missile) tech exists because ICBM's are useful.
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. |
quote:
"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. |
Ah, well, if they want to threaten someone else, best of luck to them.
Really, the only reason someone would want an ICBM would be to threaten the US. For a regional dispute, all they need is a shorter-range missile.
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? |
quote:
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. |
quote:
You didn't address other motives such as prestige, bargaining chip, arms and technology sales, attacks on US military targets outside the shield. |
Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
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? |
You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up. |
The point is not the missiles. The point is the warning, tracking, and control systems. You ain't got nothing without them.
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
And that market for ICBM (more than just missile) tech exists because ICBM's are useful. |
No. If your country cannot build ICBMs, you are not in a position to buy them. These are not one shot deal things, they require constant maintenance and you don't have the know-how for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region. |
You have it backwards. Many countries view the "missile shield" as an US gambit to gain a nuclear monopoly, thus is free to blackmail them. This causes an arms race.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sinapus
Unfortunately, nuclear dampers from the Traveller game don't exist. |
I was useing Space Opera. Than it is not than dampers effect. It also stop earthquakes and vol from blow up.
My Space friend if they want to take over Earth have no fear of Nuclear Weapons they willnot work at all and they are alway on and working compare to useing than missile to shoot down than other missile.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up. |
Sorry, this argument is simply too ridiculous to address.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
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? |
Why would we bother? |
Well, of course we wouldn’t, so that means, contrary to what you said, ICBMs would still have value to some -- even if the US and all of it's allies (!) were protected by a 100% effective umbrella.
quote:
And that market for ICBM (more than just missile) tech exists because ICBM's are useful. |
Yep, and will be as long as nations want to hurl nukes at each other, American shield or no American shield.
quote:
Really, the only reason someone would want an ICBM would be to threaten the US. For a regional dispute, all they need is a shorter-range missile. |
You seem pretty confident that no intercontinental feuds will ever develop again. What was the Falklands conflict, ancient history? Besides, the line between intermediate-range nuclear missiles and ICBMs is pretty easily crossed, as our favorite example of North Korea has shown. And if you can build ICBMs, you can certainly sell shorter-range missiles, right?
quote:
Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. |
Why is the tech useless? You yourself just pointed out that Pakistan, for example, won't be protected by an American missile shield.
quote:
If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region. |
If we can move the shield? UR hit it on the head, the missiles are just one part of a massive array of integrated systems. It's vastly complex. I suggest a little basic research into the system you are advocating.
As for "threatening their neighbors", I guess you just negated your own claim that ICBMs will be useless.
quote:
Assuming we can find them. Even a pretty small country like NK is very big. |
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the US military is about to attack another nation without knowing where its ICBMs were. Don't you think establishing those locations would be part of a preparation for war? Besides, ICBM launching facilities are a little hard to construct and maintain clandestinely.
quote:
No, because those are side benefits. They mean that the money isn't wasted, and in fact goes straight back into the economy. It doesn't get sucked into some black hole. |
Sorry, but your saying "there will be benefits" is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. There may be, there may not be. Even if there are, it would be vastly more efficient to invest directly into those technologies, no? You're back in pure speculation land.
quote:
MAD would apply; that's the problem. |
Oops, own goal. If MAD does apply (thank you!  ), why on earth would we need a shield? The nation in question would be deterred from attack by our conventional and nuclear forces.
quote:
They now have influence on us. If they can't nuke us, but we can nuke them, not only don't they have influence on us, but we have a LOT of influence with them. |
Another own goal! One of the many criticisms of the shield idea is that it will destabilize the global status quo by threatening the stability of MAD. A missile shield could conceivably give the US first strike capability against nations with limited nuclear forces (something you seem to think is desirable). This is exactly why the Bush admin keeps re-assuring China that the missile shield will be very limited in its capability. If it weren't, it could nullify China's nuclear force, possibly triggering a new nuclear arms race.
Besides, as you mentioned earlier, the nuke and the ICBM are different. Having the ability to produce nuclear weapons is not diminshed by merely being unable to deliver them on the top of an expensive ICBM. They could still nuke us using an alternate delivery platform, sell the weapons to other countries or terrorists, etc. There's more to "influence" than just ICBM delivery vehicles.
quote:
Except the ONLY people who would be able to start an arms race would be the people the system isn't aimed at in the first place - such as Russia. |
The system is being designed so that it can only handle a very limited number of incoming targets (see China reference above). One of the many ways in which the shield can be defeated is for a potential enemy to simply acquire more missiles - not exactly a desirable policy outcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
A) This system is being deployed because Bush made a campaign promise that it would be deployed. As long as people believe it can work, his mission is accomplished. |
That's exactly why some of us continually take the time to laboriously demolish these ABM shield threads. People believe in this without really thinking about it.
News analyses tend to focus obsessively on interceptor test results. Alternative delivery systems, for example, are seldom mentioned. It is assumed that any would-be nuclear attacker will simply dismantle his ICBMs and give up.
quote:
A more likely scenario is one in which hostilities are escalating over time. This makes the nuclear fishing trawler scenario less likely. |
I would agree that it would be harder to slip a ship through during a time of national crisis. But that's just one example of an alternative delivery platform. Perhaps you could pre-position a nuclear weapon, drive one in, ship it via an unwitting third party ("snakehead" container-smuggler tactic), deliver by small plane, or some other means not yet guessed. Heck, a container-born weapon could be shipped a year in advance, sitting in a warehouse in Washington, waiting for remote detonation. My point is that after the attacks on the Cole and WTC, I am not ready to assume the enemies of the US are dumb.
Also, a situation involving escalating hostilites should provide additional time and options for the US to pre-emptively take out the ICBMs by conventional means. $50 billion could buy us something like five more carrier battlegroups - that ought to be enough conventional force!
quote:
Money spent on nuclear defense is not in and of itself a waste. |
True, but one must balance the likelihood of the risk with the cost of the insurance. I might be willing to buy Q Cubed's UFO insurance for ten cents, but not for $1,000. $50 billion for insurance against an extremely unlikely threat seems more than a little unwise.
When you additionally consider that the system in question has yet to pass a realistic test, much less begin to deal with simple defenses such as decoys, the idea becomes boondoggle squared.
quote:
F) This system might well be able to defeat an accidental launch, as we could conceivably use several interceptors to take down the one (hopefully) missle. |
I was expecting the "accidental launch" scenario sooner or later, but not from a typically level-headed poster such as you, Sikander!
An ICBM is a very complex system that is not launched by accidentally leaning on a big red button. I can’t comment from knowledge about the specific Taepo Dong missiles NK has developed, but there are any number of things that might need to be done before a missile can be launched -- much less accurately strike a target on the other side of the world. Perhaps fuels need to be loaded or adjusted, gantries moved, silo doors opened, electronics booted, warhead armed, targeting information uploaded, trajectory adjustments for weather conditions, etc. Perhaps there is a missile expert at OT (there seems to be at least one expert for everything) that can comment more accurately about the preparation required. Whatever the exact chain of events is, it's got to be pretty darn complicated.
Tens of thousands of nuclear missiles have been built world-wide in the last century. How many accidental launches of any kind have taken place? Heck, how many accidental launches of any kind of missile have taken place - much less accidental launches in which the missile reached its target? And detonated properly?
Of course, this doesn’t mean it's impossible, but it does give us an idea of the relative likelihood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
You can stick missiles on boats. Boats can then cross oceans. Then you take the missiles off the boats and set them up. |
Sorry, this argument is simply too ridiculous to address. |
There's something wrong with it? I'm sorry, maybe the laws of physics recently changed and things don't float anymore. I guess we'd have to use a plane, instead. Unless those stop working too. Of course, then, it'd be doubtful that ICBM's would work either - and we wouldn't have to worry anymore about the FBOD!
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
Well, of course we wouldn’t, so that means, contrary to what you said, ICBMs would still have value to some -- even if the US and all of it's allies (!) were protected by a 100% effective umbrella. |
Which two countries have enough of a rivalry to want to nuke each other AND are far enough apart to need ICBM's to do it?
quote:
Yep, and will be as long as nations want to hurl nukes at each other, American shield or no American shield. |
See above.
quote:
Really, the only reason someone would want an ICBM would be to threaten the US. For a regional dispute, all they need is a shorter-range missile. |
quote:
You seem pretty confident that no intercontinental feuds will ever develop again. |
Not that don't include one of our allies. The only countries (not allied with us) I can think of that MIGHT be worthwhile nuking (in that they are important enough to merit the huge development cost of ICBM's) are Russia and China. And even them, probably not.
quote:
What was the Falklands conflict, ancient history? |
England is an ally. Russia and China have no overseas colonies.
quote:
Besides, the line between intermediate-range nuclear missiles and ICBMs is pretty easily crossed, as our favorite example of North Korea has shown. |
1) I'm not sure that's true (but I won't dispute it, as I have no specific source)
2) Even if it is true, there'd be no incentive to cross it.
quote:
And if you can build ICBMs, you can certainly sell shorter-range missiles, right? |
So?
The whole argument about developing it so you can sell it is pretty much BS - it's the same philosophy held by those who bought Pokemon cards because they thought they could sell the cards and earn money. Countries are generally not retarded in quite that way.
quote:
Yes I have, several times. If the tech is useless, you can't sell it. |
quote:
Why is the tech useless? You yourself just pointed out that Pakistan, for example, won't be protected by an American missile shield. |
Who wants to nuke Pakistan who isn't close enough to do so without ICBM's?
quote:
If we can move the shield, we can cover who we need to. We really don't care if they threaten their neighbors, except inasmuch as it destabilizes the region. |
quote:
If we can move the shield? UR hit it on the head, the missiles are just one part of a massive array of integrated systems. It's vastly complex. I suggest a little basic research into the system you are advocating. |
If the system involves satellites, this won't be a problem. And we didn't have that difficult a time moving in the Patriots during the first Gulf War (whether or not they worked is a seperate issue from their relative portability).
quote:
As for "threatening their neighbors", I guess you just negated your own claim that ICBMs will be useless. |
Notice I said "neighbors". The US doesn't need ICBM's to hit Canada (hell, we don't even need them to hit Russia or China, but most countries don't have the submarine fleet we do and/or the ability to actually get past our air defenses  ). India doesn't need them to hit Pakistan. NK doesn't need them to hit Japan or SK.
NK does need them to hit America. Pretty much anyone who would ever want to nuke us does. That's an advantage of having two nice, big oceans between us and the rest of the world.
quote:
Assuming we can find them. Even a pretty small country like NK is very big. |
quote:
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the US military is about to attack another nation without knowing where its ICBMs were. Don't you think establishing those locations would be part of a preparation for war? Besides, ICBM launching facilities are a little hard to construct and maintain clandestinely. |
You really think so? I'm sure NK has plenty of mountainous terrain that would be perfect for hiding from satellites.
quote:
No, because those are side benefits. They mean that the money isn't wasted, and in fact goes straight back into the economy. It doesn't get sucked into some black hole. |
quote:
Sorry, but your saying "there will be benefits" is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. There may be, there may not be. Even if there are, it would be vastly more efficient to invest directly into those technologies, no? You're back in pure speculation land. |
Yes, it would be more efficient, but as I said, it's a side issue, not the main one. And no, it's not speculation. I'm sure there is not a single area of military R&D for the past fifty years, no, the past century (in fact, probably EVER) that has not resulted in civilian applications.
quote:
MAD would apply; that's the problem. |
quote:
Oops, own goal. If MAD does apply (thank you! ), why on earth would we need a shield? The nation in question would be deterred from attack by our conventional and nuclear forces. |
Because MAD hinders us as well as them! There's a reason it's called "mutually" assured destruction. We want just AD.
quote:
They now have influence on us. If they can't nuke us, but we can nuke them, not only don't they have influence on us, but we have a LOT of influence with them. |
quote:
Another own goal! One of the many criticisms of the shield idea is that it will destabilize the global status quo by threatening the stability of MAD. |
What stability? It won't hurt MAD with the powers that exist now, because it can't handle significant numbers of missiles. And for those countries that only have a few missiles, there's no problem with "instability", because even if they were so idiotic as to start a war, that war would not be of the scale that MAD was supposed to prevent - that is, war in Europe with Russia or in Asia with China, i.e. WWIII.
quote:
A missile shield could conceivably give the US first strike capability against nations with limited nuclear forces (something you seem to think is desirable). |
Exactly.
quote:
This is exactly why the Bush admin keeps re-assuring China that the missile shield will be very limited in its capability. If it weren't, it could nullify China's nuclear force, possibly triggering a new nuclear arms race. |
Yup.
quote:
Besides, as you mentioned earlier, the nuke and the ICBM are different. Having the ability to produce nuclear weapons is not diminshed by merely being unable to deliver them on the top of an expensive ICBM. They could still nuke us using an alternate delivery platform, sell the weapons to other countries or terrorists, etc. There's more to "influence" than just ICBM delivery vehicles. |
No, there isn't. A nation-state can't threaten to send over the FBOD, which by nature is a covert act
quote:
The system is being designed so that it can only handle a very limited number of incoming targets (see China reference above). One of the many ways in which the shield can be defeated is for a potential enemy to simply acquire more missiles - not exactly a desirable policy outcome. |
Except that it costs a HUGE amount to maintain any significant (in that it would not be affected by missile defense) ICBM force, so it is difficult or impossible for a (compared to the current powers with ICBM's) small country to get - a point that was made on the first or second page of this thread. It's a barrier to entry in the nuclear club (from now on I'm using nuclear to mean specifically ICBM's, k?), requiring a much larger initial investment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Devolpment of than field that doesnot allow than nuclear weapon to explose make more sence. It is passive protection like the bulletproof vest policeman wear. It doesnot matter it the bomb came by missle or airplane,boat or sent by UPS it wouldnot explosive at all.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2004 01:01
what does that have to do with my post?
|