23-12-2004 11:51									#151
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I'm not saying he isn't crazy. I'm just not saying he is. There is plenty of evidence for both arguments so I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't think you're taking a stand on the evidence, but simply declaring him crazy because he's a dictator.

No, actually, I am saying it is prudent to take precautions to defend North America against him, and others who might turn out like him.

Iran, 'we would gladly perish if we could kill the Great Satan' is a whole other conversation.

	23-12-2004 12:01									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither No, actually, I am saying it is prudent to take precautions to defend North America against him, and others who might turn out like him.

I don't value a North American city over Seoul, except maybe the one I'm living in. Kim already has the capacity to kill a million human beings within a few hours. Adding Seattle to that list makes him no more dangerous than he was ten years ago. While I'm sure that gives no comfort to those living in Seattle, they long ago excepted the possibility of sudden death, living in a the path of a massive lahar should Mt. Ranier erupt. Now that I've gone off in a completely silly tangent . . . .

I don't have a problem with developing an ABM system. No one here is arguing against developing an ABM system.

Let's put it this way. Do you think we should build an interstellar startship today? We could build one. It would reach Alpha Centauri in about 45 years. It might even work. Do you think it's worth it?

The system that is being built does not work. It's not that it has a less than 100% chance of working. It has a less than 10% chance of working. That's not a system I want our government deluding itself into relying on. It does not work. The money spent building it is completely wasted money. It's not protecting us.

	23-12-2004 12:07									#153
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I don't value a North American city over Seoul, except maybe the one I'm living in. Kim already has the capacity to kill a million human beings within a few hours. Adding Seattle to that list makes him no more dangerous than he was ten years ago. While I'm sure that gives no comfort to those living in Seattle, they long ago excepted the possibility of sudden death, living in a the path of a massive lahar should Mt. Ranier erupt. Now that I've gone off in a completely silly tangent . . . .

Yup, I'd say so.

quote: I don't have a problem with developing an ABM system. No one here is arguing against developing an ABM system. Let's put it this way. Do you think we should build an interstellar startship today? We could build one. It would reach Alpha Centauri in about 45 years. It might even work. Do you think it's worth it? The system that is being built does not work. It's not that it has a less than 100% chance of working. It has a less than 10% chance of working. That's not a system I want our government deluding itself into relying on. It does not work. The money spent building it is completely wasted money. It's not protecting us.

I am not so sure. It does not look great right now, but nor did airplanes vs dreadnaughts in the 1920's. Conventional wisdom was that the new technology (aircraft) employed against the old (ships) was hopeless. Still, some persisted. They were right.

You are never going to succeed if you do not try.

Arguments that it does not work right now, therefore it is useless, do not seem very wise, to me.

	23-12-2004 12:08									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Let's put it this way. Do you think we should build an interstellar startship today? We could build one. It would reach Alpha Centauri in about 45 years. It might even work. Do you think it's worth it?

If you had asked that question about 3 years ago, I would have said 'no' but the way things have been going lately...

And no, I'm not kidding. We're likely looking at some pretty devastaing wars in the next few decades, so having colonies elsewhere in the Sol system might help in recovery here at home. Other star systems, probably not as much, but maybe still a good way of stacking the deck in our survival's favor.

	23-12-2004 21:30									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Timewarp to nearly 70 years ago... except every action of his has had a readily identifiable motive and purpose: that is, to roll back the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. Right, he couldn't be mad at all.

Your example is of a man who didn't care so much about maintaining power--a person who wanted to dominate the world.

Kim wants to stay in power. Notice how he always rattles his saber just enough so that the world pays attention to him and then panics, but not enough for them to actually do anything?

Sure, go ahead and consider him insane. Most everybody else underestimates him and does the same thing.

Personally, I'm more afraid of the person who uses apparent insanity as a diversion while he hatches more diabolical schemes.

	23-12-2004 22:13									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Who says our government "relies" on the system. It is actually our last line of defense, so naturally our least effective. There are several other military options alone before that one, let alone others before that.

	23-12-2004 23:58									#157
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I am not so sure. It does not look great right now, but nor did airplanes vs dreadnaughts in the 1920's. Conventional wisdom was that the new technology (aircraft) employed against the old (ships) was hopeless. Still, some persisted. They were right.

The difference is, when Billy Mitchell tested his hypothesis, it worked so well it embarressed the hell out of the Navy, and they killed his carreer.

Please show me when this ABM system pwned anything? It CAN'T hit anything that doesn't try to be hit. So WHY ARE WE PUTTING IT IN THE FIELD??? We don't we leave it in development until it actually works!?!

If I was developing a shield that could deflect bullets, would you buy it from me when I said 1% of the time, it will stop a bullet. It costs $1,000,000. Your life is worth more to you than that. And someday I might even have it working better. So you should buy it RIGHT NOW, in case you get mugged walking home tonight.

	24-12-2004 09:46									#158
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither except every action of his has had a readily identifiable motive and purpose: that is, to roll back the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles.

The difference is Kim hasn't done a thing that would make him deemed mad. At least power mad. OTOH, the other person started off by rolling tanks into various places...

	24-12-2004 13:37									#159
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The difference is, when Billy Mitchell tested his hypothesis, it worked so well it embarressed the hell out of the Navy, and they killed his carreer. Please show me when this ABM system pwned anything? It CAN'T hit anything that doesn't try to be hit. So WHY ARE WE PUTTING IT IN THE FIELD??? We don't we leave it in development until it actually works!?! If I was developing a shield that could deflect bullets, would you buy it from me when I said 1% of the time, it will stop a bullet. It costs $1,000,000. Your life is worth more to you than that. And someday I might even have it working better. So you should buy it RIGHT NOW, in case you get mugged walking home tonight.

The difference is that the history of flight is anything but an uninterupted string of successes you would like to portray. Then there is rocketry. The space program was an unending series of successes, yes? How many rockets blew up on launch? Should they have stopped?

You are demanding perfection IN CAPS from a technology that is being developed. People with such attitudes stood on the docks screaming at steamers, they stood on the ground screaming at aircraft, and they said that sending men to the moon was impossible. But I understand, we are supposed to listen to your shouting now, when shouters in the past have an unbroken record of being wrong.

	24-12-2004 13:39									#160
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The difference is Kim hasn't done a thing that would make him deemed mad. At least power mad. OTOH, the other person started off by rolling tanks into various places...

Firing a missile over Japan was a very sane thing to do.

	24-12-2004 21:07									#161
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You are demanding perfection IN CAPS from a technology that is being developed.

Yet again, you ignore what I said to go off on how we're demanding perfection and saying it will never work. :rolleyeys: At this point I can only conclude you are trolling, since we have repeated time and again, that is not the case.



It's funny. People ***** and moan about buying buggy software that just needs a patch. The "missile shield" isn't even in a pre-release version, but we're being forced to shell out $20 billion. Again, how would you feel about being forced to buy and use a "proof of concept" piece of software?

It may be the case that in a decade or so this will work. That's fine. Let's go ahead and continue spending money trying to see if we can make it work. Given the test results we currently have, however, it is a waste of money to build a unit, not for testing, but for actual defense. It's also dangerous, cuz once it exists, policy makers will forget that this system hasn't succeeded at anything approximating a real test, but has only been able to hit the equivalent of the broad side of a barn from the inside of that barn with the doors and windows closed.

This is the equivalent of the United States building an airforce ten years before Orvile and Wilber Wright flew at Kitty Hawk. It's the equivalent of trying to send a man to the moon on a rocket built by Goddard. We aren't saying the technology will never work. We aren't saying it won't work now because it's a crazy idea. We are saying, based on the actual tests and results it does not work.

It has succeeded in five out of eight tests in tests. Thats about a 60% chance of success. This, however, is the equivalent of giving a student all the answers on a math test, and his getting 60% of the answers right, and then expecting him to be able to do the math on his own. It's a farce.

The tests only succeeded because:

1) The test targets were fired on an outbound trajectory. This enabled the ABM tracking system to track the missile from launch, giving it more time to calculate a trajectory. This will not be the case for an inbound missile.

2) The test missiles had homing beacons on them. This enabled the ABM to not only track the target but home in on it in flight. Three times it still missed. The enemy is not going to put a hmoing beacon on their missiles.

3) No counter measures, such as dummy warheads, smoke, etc. If they can't deal with this problem, then there's no point in even bothering with the program.

I am sure all these problems can be overcome in time. What I do not want, however, is to be forced to spend $20 billion on a pre-alpha system that can't surmount even one of these issues.

Is that being too demanding?

	24-12-2004 21:17									#162
	Support Apolyton

quote: It may be the case that in a decade or so this will work. That's fine. Let's go ahead and continue spending money trying to see if we can make it work. Given the test results we currently have, however, it is a waste of money to build a unit, not for testing, but for actual defense. It's also dangerous, cuz once it exists, policy makers will forget that this system hasn't succeeded at anything approximating a real test, but has only been able to hit the equivalent of the broad side of a barn from the inside of that barn with the doors and windows closed.

The system is stationary, there little differance between keeping it in test phase and running it at is current pique operational tempo.

"Deploying" it is a misnomer, and you should realize you are argueing over semantics.

What I would really expect you to be whining about is how saying it is deployed is a misnomer.

	24-12-2004 21:21									#163
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 1) The test targets were fired on an outbound trajectory. This enabled the ABM tracking system to track the missile from launch, giving it more time to calculate a trajectory. This will not be the case for an inbound missile.

We haven't had problems detecting and tracking ICBMs for a good 40 odd years. I bet NORAD got a good bit of training in tracking all this.

quote: 3) No counter measures, such as dummy warheads, smoke, etc. If they can't deal with this problem, then there's no point in even bothering with the program.

No ICBMs or missiles period have countermeasures. This is just armchair general ignorance. The closest you could get is the terminal spiral of the new French Exocets, but hardly a target for an ABM system.

	24-12-2004 22:26									#164
	Remove this text

quote: Firing a missile over Japan was a very sane thing to do.

it happened at a time when nkorea felt that neither japan nor the us were holding up their part of the bargain.
it happened at a time when nkorea wanted to prove that it really did have a working theatre missile capability.
it happened at a time when nkorea wanted to garner more attention so they could get more sweet things thrown at them for not launching those missiles.

what happened? japan sent more food aid and construction on the KEDO light water reactors quickened.

	25-12-2004 14:54									#165
	Increase Your PM Length

You seem very excusing of the man, Q. Very good. Maybe you are right and I am wrong, or the other way around. However, I see no point in continuing to argue whether the reoccupation of the Rhineland was a good idea or not.

Perhaps you would make issue with the idea that he acts like a threat. Perhaps you would inhabit lala land and scream at the visitors that black is white and white is black.

	25-12-2004 14:58									#166
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yet again, you ignore what I said to go off on how we're demanding perfection and saying it will never work. :rolleyeys: At this point I can only conclude you are trolling, since we have repeated time and again, that is not the case. It's funny. People ***** and moan about buying buggy software that just needs a patch. The "missile shield" isn't even in a pre-release version, but we're being forced to shell out $20 billion. Again, how would you feel about being forced to buy and use a "proof of concept" piece of software? It may be the case that in a decade or so this will work. That's fine. Let's go ahead and continue spending money trying to see if we can make it work. Given the test results we currently have, however, it is a waste of money to build a unit, not for testing, but for actual defense. It's also dangerous, cuz once it exists, policy makers will forget that this system hasn't succeeded at anything approximating a real test, but has only been able to hit the equivalent of the broad side of a barn from the inside of that barn with the doors and windows closed. This is the equivalent of the United States building an airforce ten years before Orvile and Wilber Wright flew at Kitty Hawk. It's the equivalent of trying to send a man to the moon on a rocket built by Goddard. We aren't saying the technology will never work. We aren't saying it won't work now because it's a crazy idea. We are saying, based on the actual tests and results it does not work. It has succeeded in five out of eight tests in tests. Thats about a 60% chance of success. This, however, is the equivalent of giving a student all the answers on a math test, and his getting 60% of the answers right, and then expecting him to be able to do the math on his own. It's a farce. The tests only succeeded because: 1) The test targets were fired on an outbound trajectory. This enabled the ABM tracking system to track the missile from launch, giving it more time to calculate a trajectory. This will not be the case for an inbound missile. 2) The test missiles had homing beacons on them. This enabled the ABM to not only track the target but home in on it in flight. Three times it still missed. The enemy is not going to put a hmoing beacon on their missiles. 3) No counter measures, such as dummy warheads, smoke, etc. If they can't deal with this problem, then there's no point in even bothering with the program. I am sure all these problems can be overcome in time. What I do not want, however, is to be forced to spend $20 billion on a pre-alpha system that can't surmount even one of these issues. Is that being too demanding?

It seems to me that your 'deployment' is simply the next needed step in development.

You would scream no matter what was done. You don't like it. As you said, you value no American city over one in Korea. I think your adminstration and Congress does. I should hope to hell they do. I live on one of the many trajectories that one of those less than smart bombs may make their way.

	25-12-2004 15:01									#167
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Incidently, there is **** all anyone could do about a rocket launched from NK to SK, or maybe Japan.

Your insistence that if they are vulnerable, so must the US and the rest of NA is simply... bizarre.

It's like someone saying that someone will die on the highways this year, therefore it would be irresponsible for anyone to wear a seatbealt.

	25-12-2004 21:43									#168
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Incidently, there is **** all anyone could do about a rocket launched from NK to SK, or maybe Japan. Your insistence that if they are vulnerable, so must the US and the rest of NA is simply... bizarre.

Is somebody saying that? I missed it.

	25-12-2004 22:15									#169
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: You seem very excusing of the man, Q. Very good. Maybe you are right and I am wrong, or the other way around. However, I see no point in continuing to argue whether the reoccupation of the Rhineland was a good idea or not.

i wasn't arguing anything about the rhineland, godwin. even figuratively. and you think i'm excusing either of them?

you think i like this guy? i'm speechless.

quite frankly, i'm sorry you feel that way. because when the **** hits the fan, it's not your family who's going into the blender.

quote: Perhaps you would make issue with the idea that he acts like a threat.

are you purposefully dense? i'm arguing that he acts like a threat simply because that's the only way he feels he can get attention or capital into his country. period. how is acting like a threat automagically turning them into an insane freak? the soviet leaders and the chinese leaders for years have been a threat. were they all insane? the taiwanese leader has always been a threat to the chinese, was he insane?

being a threat and rattling your saber does not necessarily make you crazy is all i'm saying.

quote: Perhaps you would inhabit lala land and scream at the visitors that black is white and white is black.

here's what i fear.
the crazy person always talks ****, is unpredictable, but when they actually throw the punch, there's no force. it's all sound and fury, nothing substantive.
the diabolical person who acts crazy talks ****, is unpredictable, and throws random punches that you can avoid. but that's all distraction, 'cause he's sharpening knives elsewhere.

i'm arguing kim's the latter, not the former. you're arguing that we should just be dealing with the former aspect of him.

	26-12-2004 07:24									#170
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So DPRK fired a missile over Japan. Okay, how does it make for an argument for the US to deploy the missile shield?

	26-12-2004 11:15									#171
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Is somebody saying that? I missed it.

What were you trying to say then?

quote: quote: Originally posted by notyoueither No, actually, I am saying it is prudent to take precautions to defend North America against him, and others who might turn out like him. Originally posted by chegitz guevara I don't value a North American city over Seoul, except maybe the one I'm living in. Kim already has the capacity to kill a million human beings within a few hours...

	26-12-2004 11:22									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed here's what i fear. the crazy person always talks ****, is unpredictable, but when they actually throw the punch, there's no force. it's all sound and fury, nothing substantive. the diabolical person who acts crazy talks ****, is unpredictable, and throws random punches that you can avoid. but that's all distraction, 'cause he's sharpening knives elsewhere. i'm arguing kim's the latter, not the former. you're arguing that we should just be dealing with the former aspect of him.

So, he's unpredictable, and he's sharpening knives, but the United States should take no steps to improve protection for North America, is that it? Have I got that straight?

I'm actually arguing that no matter how you paint him, Kim is a threat, and the the United States should do what is reasonable to protect against that threat from him or any other source.

btw, it ain't Godwin when it is appropriate. When people ignore the events of the '30s, it is entirely appropriate to remind them.

	26-12-2004 11:40									#173
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What were you trying to say then?

I certainly wasn't saying that if the Koreans are vunerable, we have to be vulnerable. I will, however, concede that my point wasn't coherent, and could easily lead to that conclusion. In fact, I don't even know what I was trying to say, except that it wasn't how you interpreted it.

	26-12-2004 11:45									#174
	Remove this text

Fair enough.

	26-12-2004 17:40									#175
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

UR, how many NMD threads have there been in the last couple of years? Fifteen? Each time the same arguments get trotted out, each time they are summarily shot down.

-----------

The "irrational leader" scenario doesn't hold water. It assumes that a "nutcase" or desperate leader might not be deterred by MAD, yet for some never-explained reason would be deterred by an ABM system.

Why would a leader determined to nuke the US - determined despite the likely dire consequences - simply give up because he couldn't do it via ICBM? Why wouldn't he just deliver the goods using another delivery platform?

This argument just doesn't make sense.

	26-12-2004 17:59									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Building this system is like spending a small fortune to burglar-proof the chimney of a house that has no locks on its windows or doors.

Would the house be any more secure? No.

Even if the anti-burglar chimney system was 100% effective, the house would be no more secure as long as the doors and windows could not be locked.

The owner would simply be poorer by one small fortune. Or worse, the owner may develop a false sense of security and forget about his doors and windows hanging open.

Debating the potential level of effectiveness of the chimney system is not useful. Even at 100% it's useless. Debating whether or not there exists a burglar who would bypass an open door to try the chimney is equally pointless. As a defensive system, it is simply of nil value as long as the doors and windows cannot be secured.

	26-12-2004 18:00									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The "irrational leader" scenario doesn't hold water. It assumes that a "nutcase" or desperate leader might not be deterred by MAD, yet for some never-explained reason would be deterred by an ABM system.

What does deterrence have to do with it? The "irrational leader" scenario is presented as the case when we would actually have to use the ABD system to shoot down a nuke.

	26-12-2004 19:30									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: So, he's unpredictable, and he's sharpening knives, but the United States should take no steps to improve protection for North America, is that it? Have I got that straight?

...

go back and read the one and only post where i reference ABM. i don't mind ABM, i just don't think this system works, and for you to say that this is the system we should rely on... when riding a bike, i'd rather pay $500 for a helmet that'll stop me from getting a broken neck, rather than pay $500 for a helmet that's nothing more than paper. if i can't get the real helmet, then why not save up for it, while spending the rest of the money to get kneepads and what not?

you'll see that virtually all of my posts have been arguing against the notion that kim is some wild-eyed psycho. he's not. if you look at his behavior, he does play the part perfectly, but what happens when he gets what he wants? he disappears for a while, and builds up a new deck of card tricks. then he waits for an opportune moment to--OMFG HE'S FSCKING CRAZY AGAIN! each time, he walks away with what he wants.

	27-12-2004 09:53									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The missile shield is not only ineffective, as many pointed out, and it's not only useless even if it were effective, as mindseye said. It's also dangerous because it provokes a new round or arms race.

Even the Cold War ended formally, Cold War mentality dies hard among conservatives. Given the Russian mistrust of the West and the US in particular - they have ample reasons for such mistrust, e.g. expansion of EU and NATO plus Western meddlings in the Russian sphere of influence - they are going to see everything the US does in the worst possible light.

In such a context, there are reasons for the Russians and the Chinese to see the missile shield as a vital component for nuclear blackmail, because it eliminates MAD. Sure, it will not be able to block a full blown Russian first strike even if the missile shield work as promised - but what if it is only a retaliatory strike? IOW, if the US launches the first strike, the missile shield is going to stop the inevitable counterattack, thus destroying MAD and gives the US impunity in using nuclear attacks.

To counter this possibility, they need to develop new weapons that cannot be stopped by the missile shield. In fact, the Russians are already doing this. Some reports have it that they have successfully tested advanced re-entrant scramjet-assisted vehicles that go at Mach 5+.

	27-12-2004 13:52									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mindseye The "irrational leader" scenario doesn't hold water. It assumes that a "nutcase" or desperate leader might not be deterred by MAD, yet for some never-explained reason would be deterred by an ABM system. [QUOTE] Who said ABM was a deterrent? It seems to be geared towards what small states with potentially unstable leadership might do. The assumption is they may launch a limited number of weapons no matter the consequences. That is why MAD may not be safe to rely on. [QUOTE] Why would a leader determined to nuke the US - determined despite the likely dire consequences - simply give up because he couldn't do it via ICBM? Why wouldn't he just deliver the goods using another delivery platform? This argument just doesn't make sense.

It does in a crisis. You want to deliver a nuke via ship? That'll take time. That could also be detected and stopped. There is no stopping an ICBM as things stand and they can deliver their payload in less than an hour after the decision is taken to launch.