22-12-2004 01:33									#91
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat What if someone did launch 1 single nuclear missile at a target? If that happened, MAD would have failed. What should the US do if NK launched 1 single nuclear missile at say Japan? Should we: a) immediately launch a large nuclear attack at NK. b) retaliate with a single nuclear missile of our own. c) wait and see. the missile might miss or be a dud. d) retaliate with a conventional attack only. e) do nothing. It was just 1 missile, and retaliating will only escalate things even worse.

Well, E is not a very probable outcome.

If it was a nuclear attack against a third party, then the response would be based on the damage done. Any attack would be an act of war and thus full conventional retaliation would be in order. Possible nuclear retaliation would really be based on the damage done. The more destructive the nuclear attack, the more likely a retaliatory nuclear strike would become.

Of coruse, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war, hence if NK launches a nuclear missile, shield or not, war has begun.

So the question is no just will some nut try for a single nuke (Why anyways?), but war or not.

	22-12-2004 01:35									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos If there were any around, but more likely he is scared.

Of your rantings?

You have yet to pose a coherent arguement.

I would be more likely tiffed and annoyed by having to "argue" with you. All Fezists are more bother than they are worth.

	22-12-2004 01:36									#93
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: That's the whole point of MAD, Patroklos

Wrong team.

Container Ships have nothing to do with this. The thread is based on some stupid notion that the ANM system doesn't work as it is supposed to or was some how techincally flawed.

That is wrong. It is working better than it should right now and is actually giving us real protection before it was scheduled too.

Whether we need that protection is not the point of this thread.

	22-12-2004 01:37									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Of course, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war, hence if NK launches a nuclear missile, shield or not, war has begun.

This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

	22-12-2004 01:38									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I would be more likely tiffed and annoyed by having to "argue" with you.

Typical G, scared to actually say anthing in rebuttal for fear of looking stupid.

Much easier to just unilaterally declare victory

Merry Christmas.

	22-12-2004 01:40									#96
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Of coruse, what missile defense people miss is that any attack, whether succesful or not, is an act of war

Yep, the miltary doesn't realize a nuclear strike means war. You are sp smarrrrrrt.

Please continue, this is starting to get good.

	22-12-2004 01:41									#97
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

??

If A guy shoots at you, and misses, you would not shoot back? Having shot one missile, obviously this regime has no qualms about shooting, and maybe next time they won't be intercepted.

An act of war is an act of war. Besides, why on Earth would NK simply just shoot a nuclear missile, which obviously they would intent to do damage, and just sit there otherwise? This makes no sense. You shoot a missile on purpose, you have declared war- you either go all out, or you don't act at all.

	22-12-2004 01:42									#98
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Container ships have EVERYTHING to do with this. They are the more likely delivery system/component that could be used by a more likely enemy. US ports are still woefully undersecured due to underfunding, yet this boondoggle is being deployed despite an unacceptable failure rate IN RIGGED TESTS for the sole purpose of making President Bush look good by fulfilling his campaign promise of deploying the first batteries by Election Day, 2004.

	22-12-2004 01:43									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: This is an interesting response because I think that if we did successfully knock out a nuclear missile and no damage was done that we probably shouldn't retaliate at all. If no damage were done, why start a war?

That first strike will most certainly be followed or be concurent with conventional attacks.

Like Master of the Obvious said, the first strike is war, whether you retaliate or not. Just because you pawned someone in what amounts as the first battle doesn't mean the war is over. Not to mention any country that would initiate a first strike need some serious internal changes.

	22-12-2004 01:43									#100
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Edited, but you were too fast. I confused you and The Diplomat. My bad.

Container Ships *do* have something to do with this, although the connection is definitely indirect. What I'm saying is that, while ABM is something I'd want if I had unlimited resources, we don't have unlimited resources. Therefore, I'd rather our resources be devoted to more pressing things - threats I consider to be more clear & present, such as nukes being delivered via container, etc.

And the thread has become about whether we need ABM or not, so that's what the current discussion is about. Besides, the OP was thin cover for not wanting ABM in the first place.

-Arrian

	22-12-2004 01:46									#101
	Support Apolyton

quote: Container ships have EVERYTHING to do with this. They are the more likely delivery system/component that could be used by a more likely enemy. US ports are still woefully undersecured due to underfunding, yet this boondoggle is being deployed despite an unacceptable failure rate IN RIGGED TESTS for the sole purpose of making President Bush look good by fulfilling his campaign promise of deploying the first batteries by Election Day, 2004.

Containers are important, just not in this thread.

And of course the test was rigged, it is a test, it has to be by definition. What you don't know is what aspect of the system was being tested in this instance.

You in fact know nothing other than a test was damages. I think the fact that the testers want to see what happens throughout the test should have shut you all up seeing how simple and logical that comment is. You all are just whining because you like it now.

	22-12-2004 01:49									#102
	Got spare money?

There's testing a system, then there's rigging a test. I'm disturbed that you don't know the difference.

Ok Fez, give Patroklos his account back. You've had your fun.

Edit: Added the smiley so that Fez doesn't blow a gasket.

	22-12-2004 01:50									#103
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree completely with you that ABM is not as important as container security, but if you want to talk about impossible goals then you have picked a good one.

20 billion on ABM, pales in comparison to the money it would take to secure even half the containers. That is before subtracting all the money lost for having such an intrusive and slow system interfereing with international trade.

That type of security is impossible for the type society we live in. The people here on apolyton are all the proof anyone needs of that.

	22-12-2004 01:52									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Okay then break it down for me. Why is have a specific data point of interest for a single test, which is not possible to observe in foul weather, amount to rigging?

Remember what you don't know about the nature of the test (I don't know either, but my premise doesn't require me to).

	22-12-2004 01:55									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They make these devices that detect radioactivity. Would it truly be THAT difficult to check a ship as it comes to port? Chemical or biological agents are another matter that, yes, would be difficult to deal with from a security standpoint, but the focus of this thread seems to be on nukes.

National security trumps international trade if the US government gets serious about securing our ports.

	22-12-2004 01:59									#106
	Tired of ads?

First, why launch an interceptor, which costs taxpayers' money, if intercepting it isn't the point. Also, we have in our arsenal plenty of ordinance that can be fired without concern for the weather. Why is this even an issue to scrub a test?

	22-12-2004 02:01									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: National security trumps international trade if the US government gets serious about securing our ports.

You would think, but your underestimating the harm to the economy that would do.

Go to a shipyard, look at the container parks, and then tell me how you plan to check them all. I am serious.

Of course we could rebuild all the nations container and port facilites. You fitting the bill.

That is after we close the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Are we going to put every fishing boat and personal craft through your detectors too, every day.

We will need to close our airspace so none of those pesky small planes get in either.


I understand what your saying, I just don't think anyone in the US really wants it if they thought about it. Our society will always be vulnerble to this. It is hardcoded.

	22-12-2004 02:01									#108
	Put an end to popups!

I have to continue Christmas shopping, but I'll be back later. There are other polytubbies who are more knowledgable in this field than I am that would probably be happy to continue debating with you. Let's agree to strongly disagree. You think it's worth it now, I think it's a "wishlist" item as aptly labeled that can wait until after other security concerns are addressed.

	22-12-2004 02:06									#109
	Tired of ads?

quote: First, why launch an interceptor, which costs taxpayers' money, if intercepting it isn't the point. Also, we have in our arsenal plenty of ordinance that can be fired without concern for the weather. Why is this even an issue to scrub a test?

Who said it wasn't going to intercept, or that it couldn't in bad wether. All they said was that the parameters of THIS test required good weather.

We do have lots of things in our arsenal, unfortunetly if I want to test an aspect of an ABM interceptor missile, I kind have to use an ABM interceptor missile.

Are you telling me you can't think of any test relevent to the program that would not require an actual interception? Engine tests? visual observation tests? Aerial manuverability tests? A host of others.

Do you know every airframe in our inventory routinely goes through the wind tunnel even though 1000s of hours are logged on each in real life every day.

This isn't very hard.

	22-12-2004 02:08									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

Did I ever say the ABM was worth it now? Quote me if I did. I would much rather they spend that money on missiles planes and tanks.

And just because now that it is built I support us using it does not mean I supported it in the beginning. But if it makes you happy we can return it. I am sure those happy defense contactors will give us our money baclk.

	22-12-2004 07:14									#111
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Who said it wasn't going to intercept, or that it couldn't in bad wether. All they said was that the parameters of THIS test required good weather.

I was calling the "interceptor" it's opposite. I should have said "target". They shouldn't have bothered with launching the target if that wasn't what they were testing. From the article:

quote: Because the launches will test several new aspects of the missile defense system, Lehner said the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission.

Continuing your quoted post:

quote: We do have lots of things in our arsenal, unfortunetly if I want to test an aspect of an ABM interceptor missile, I kind have to use an ABM interceptor missile.

Er, duh? I'm not talking about the weapons themselves, I'm talking about the components that make them work without much regard to the weather conditions.

quote: Are you telling me you can't think of any test relevent to the program that would not require an actual interception? Engine tests? visual observation tests? Aerial manuverability tests? A host of others.

Goes back to why is a target launcher necessary for that? Engines can be fired and tested on the ground. Visual observations? If you mean tracking the damn thing we already do that, and improving upon that can be down under the auspices of existing programs like NORAD. Aerial manuverability can also be tested without a seperate missile. Have it follow a pre-programmed lfight path and measure the deviation from it.

quote: Do you know every airframe in our inventory routinely goes through the wind tunnel even though 1000s of hours are logged on each in real life every day.

Yes, I did. Your point and its relevance?

quote: This isn't very hard.

No, it isn't. Yet you people keep defending this boondoggle as if it were progressing as advertised. That's my biggest problem with this whole f*cking thing: The Bush Administration and the military keep selling this potential lemon that's still in the preliminary "working" model stage as if it were ready for the showroom floor. I don't think it's a terrible idea, I just think there are better uses for that money that can deal with more pressing threats.

	22-12-2004 07:17									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Did I ever say the ABM was worth it now? Quote me if I did. I would much rather they spend that money on missiles planes and tanks. And just because now that it is built I support us using it does not mean I supported it in the beginning.

I appologize if I misinterpreted your defending it so adamently as being in support of it.

quote: But if it makes you happy we can return it. I am sure those happy defense contactors will give us our money baclk.

If you still have the receipt, please do!
We can wait to buy a more refined model later. Early releases of new products seem to always suck anyway...

	22-12-2004 07:22									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Your're trying to make a joke, right? You do have a clue where rattling sabres and threatening war ends up, don't you?

Good rebuttal. Now try something more solid than pure speculation.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither He says he has warheads? The world says he has warheads? He lobbed a missile over the Japanese mainland? Are you being intentionally dense?

Has there been one verified instance of DPRK nuclear device testing? The answer is no. So again, all hot air and no substance.

	22-12-2004 07:24									#114
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I'd be surprised if Japan is not secretly preparing themselves for the eventuality that they need to make N Korea an isotope soup when Kim finally goes totally off his rocker and they can't chance it anymore.

Again, you cannot make nuclear warheads without testing them. Nowadays, everybody can detect such tests. So there's no such thing as "secretly preparing."

	22-12-2004 07:28									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Pakistan and India did it...

	22-12-2004 07:28									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed [not as mad as you are if you think he's completely insane. his moves, as odd and idiotic as they may be, fall into a recurring pattern: lots of loud posturing and bluffing, rummaging around and revealing tantalizing tidbits before hiding them again, and demanding a payoff.

Yup, I am glad you agree that Kim isn't insane. He has a method to his madness. The Bomb is the last leverage he has on the rest of the world, so he is going to squeeze as much advantages out as he could manage.

	22-12-2004 07:29									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DRoseDARs Pakistan and India did it...

Nope. Any nuclear tests conducted by these countries were quickly known by the outside world.

	22-12-2004 07:32									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

He was talking about secretly working on developing nukes, not conducting their first live-fire test of them.

	22-12-2004 07:43									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DRoseDARs He was talking about secretly working on developing nukes, not conducting their first live-fire test of them.

Sure, it's possible that they are secretly developing nuclear weapons. Developing is not the same as making working ones.

	22-12-2004 08:02									#120
	Inflate your Upload Space

So someone trying to attack the US in the future would precede his nuke with an ICBM that sprayed Silver Nitrate crystals to seed the cloud cover and make it rain over the targets?