27-07-2004 11:33									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If it were a 10% chance it might be worth it. We could fire ten of the things and have a halfway decent shot at bringing one down.

However, outside any rigged tests, this thing has only missed. So far we have a 0% chance of an actually deployed weapon of working. This isn't about testing any longer. Sure, we'll keep testing newer models, but this twenty billion was a 100% waste. They should have given it to me for all the good it will do.

	27-07-2004 11:50									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed ok, see, nye... the argument most often used to justify the development of the ballistic missile shield is not the logical and cogent argument of nkorean nukes hitting the united states. it's the one that i pointed out earlier, which mentions something about al-qaeda getting nukes somehow and then detonating them in the united states. somehow, a ballistic missile shield is supposed to protect against a nuke sent in on a boat or a car, according to the people who use that argument--and believe me, that's pretty much the only argument i ever hear.

Can you provide a source where the missile shield is being deployed because of AQ?

	27-07-2004 11:54									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If it were a 10% chance it might be worth it. We could fire ten of the things and have a halfway decent shot at bringing one down. However, outside any rigged tests, this thing has only missed. So far we have a 0% chance of an actually deployed weapon of working. This isn't about testing any longer. Sure, we'll keep testing newer models, but this twenty billion was a 100% waste. They should have given it to me for all the good it will do.

The same thing was once said by navy people about aircraft sinking ships. Even more army officers scoffed at tanks and thought them nothing more than expensive support for infantry. Would it have been a good idea to stop trying while people elsewhere moved ahead with technology?

	27-07-2004 13:45									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The problem is aircraft carriers and tanks represented the vanguard of a new era of warfare, whereas ICBMs represent an era that is clearly behind us. A more apt analogy would be the Maignot Line or say, the Battleship Yamato.

	27-07-2004 14:39									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The problem is aircraft carriers and tanks represented the vanguard of a new era of warfare, whereas ICBMs represent an era that is clearly behind us. A more apt analogy would be the Maignot Line or say, the Battleship Yamato.

ummm... You would be correct in your analogy if the USA would be developing a new ICBM...

	27-07-2004 19:22									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS The CIA estimates otherwise. Of course, you might be right and the CIA might be dead wrong, but how can we bank on your opinion among the rest?

What is the CIA saying? I thought that the latest estimates were either 1/3 or 1/2 the way to LA.

I wrote that from memory though, so I could be dead wrong.

	27-07-2004 19:23									#67
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What?

If I wanted to launch an ICBM from France against the US I would do it by sending the missile northeast, not west.

So deploying missiles in the West and North is simply a question of ballistics, not of politics.

	27-07-2004 19:25									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The point of ICBMs is that they go suborbital. You get a tremendous boost if you launch in the same direction that the Earth rotates (from West to East).

	27-07-2004 20:18									#69
	Tired of ads?

quote: What is the CIA saying?

Last year (2 years ago?), they estimated that NK could nuke the West coast.

	27-07-2004 20:20									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Can you provide a source where the missile shield is being deployed because of AQ?

i didn't say the missile shield is being deployed because of aq.

what i said was that its justificiation, heard and read in many a right-wing rag, is that we need it because of aq, not so much because of nk.

	27-07-2004 20:26									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS Last year (2 years ago?), they estimated that NK could nuke the West coast.

As I recall they said that NK could not yet reah the West Coast, but could given another decade of missile development.

	27-07-2004 20:35									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Last time this issue came up, the argument for it basically boiled down to the fact that it deterred 3rd-world countries (like Iran or NK) from even trying to develop ICBM's, because they'd have to build a lot more for the missiles to be a useful deterrant - basically, it raises the bar for joining the nuclear club.

	27-07-2004 20:38									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiap...2/12/us.nkorea/

	27-07-2004 20:38									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: what i said was that its justificiation, heard and read in many a right-wing rag, is that we need it because of aq, not so much because of nk.

Give up your tired strawman! Nobody here is arguing that.

	27-07-2004 20:41									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I see that you think your argument should figure in calculations in Washington. Sorry to disappoint, but your opinion means squat. So does mine.

Again, you missed it completely. The discussion is not about whether the pork distributors care about what any of us say or not, but about whether the "Missile Shield" can really defend against nuclear attacks from the so called "rogue states."

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither But I do think to myself, if I were an American would I rather spend zero and have zero defence against Kim going gaa gaa when senility hits, or spend 20 billion and have at least a ten percent chance that his parting gift to the USA gets stopped?

This is a rather obvious False Dilemma, don't you think?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Hmmmm, what makes you think that some loons with a few missiles won't ever try to really heat things up for the Great Satan?

That is something for you to establish.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Don't you think it might be wise for the Yanks to get ahead of that partticular game rather than play catch up, one more time?

Sure, but clearly this is not the way to do it.

	27-07-2004 20:44									#76
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Okay. That was different that what I'd recalled the answer being. Thanks, Dan

Still, "untested" in rocket lingo means it's going to explode on launch, especially as far as a country like NK goes.

I have no doubt that they could fix the problems that I'm sure are going to plague it, but I really doubt it's less than 3-4 years away from realisation.

My major argument against bmd however, is not that there are no valid threats which could be countered by it but that the probable benefits are outwighed by the costs, especially where China is concerned.

	27-07-2004 20:44									#77
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Kuciwalker, surely these countries know that the missile system doesnt work.

	27-07-2004 20:46									#78
	Tired of ads?

This isn't aimed at China. They are already in the nuke club and could overwhelm any deterrent reasonably easily, if they decided to do so.

	27-07-2004 20:46									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

That's why it's in development. Duh.

And obviously, any argument for ABM is going to assume that it's possible. Again duh.

	27-07-2004 20:46									#80
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Last time this issue came up, the argument for it basically boiled down to the fact that it deterred 3rd-world countries (like Iran or NK) from even trying to develop ICBM's, because they'd have to build a lot more for the missiles to be a useful deterrant - basically, it raises the bar for joining the nuclear club.

No, it raises the bar for joining the ICBM club.

Nuclear weapons are payload. ICBMs are delivery systems. They are not one and the same.

	27-07-2004 20:48									#81
	Support Apolyton

you knew what I meant

Another point from that thread was that a FBoD can't really be used as a strategic deterrent...

	27-07-2004 20:48									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS This isn't aimed at China. They are already in the nuke club and could overwhelm any deterrent reasonably easily, if they decided to do so.

And now they're going to decide to do so.

China's arsenal includes a relatively small number of missiles capable of reaching the US.

This is a distinct threat to their deterrent capability, and you can bet your ass that they're now in the process of increasing the number and range of their ICBM fleet.

That's not good for anybody.

	27-07-2004 20:49									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker And obviously, any argument for ABM is going to assume that it's possible. Again duh.

Whether this assumption is reasonable is quite another issue all together.

	27-07-2004 20:49									#84
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker you knew what I meant Another point from that thread was that a FBoD can't really be used as a strategic deterrent...

Yes it can.

	27-07-2004 20:50									#85
	Get a bigger avatar today!

KH: While true, why would we care about ICBM's if they didn't have nukes attached to them?

	27-07-2004 20:50									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

if anything i would try to develop something before this system comes to work, if it ever does.

	27-07-2004 20:51									#87
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: That's not good for anybody.

I think that's relatively benign for everybody. It would be maybe 50 or 100 extra nukes. Nothing to worry about.

	27-07-2004 20:53									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

DanS, behold the feared fungal payload!!! it will increase insurance rates 10 fold!

	27-07-2004 20:53									#89
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Yes it can.

What's Iran going to do? Say "capitulate or we'll unleash the fishing boats of doom?"

A deterrent, a threat, requires that there be some way to announce the impending attack (and that the attack actually is threatening). A stealth delivery method doesn't exactly lend itself to that.

	27-07-2004 20:53									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS KH: While true, why would we care about ICBM's if they didn't have nukes attached to them?

You're going the wrong way:

I'm saying that this guards against the least likely method of delivery of a nuke to the US.

Even NK isn't going to lob a nuke at the US unless Pyongyang was being overrun.

ICBMs are the exclusive property of relatively advanced states. Nukes are not, necessarily.