Because Hollywood obviously paints an unbiased picture when it comes to politics... It's cool, though... It's a situation we should be careful about, but it's also foolish to assume that no one has it out for America. Why shouldn't we have a mechanism to protect ourselves? ------------------ "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and STATISTICS..." - Mark Twain -
Because we signed a f@#$ing treaty to prevent a war that deals w/ this exact situation. By the way, if you started building your huge super duper impenetrable shield, I wonder what I would do about it... oh yeah, I'd just kick your ass before you completed it. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
There's a reason that Missile Defense systems aren't allowed, because they invites a "use 'em or lose 'em" response. Oh, and the fact that they don't work. I don't want to die from radiation poisoning(I live far enough away from a major city to survive the blast) because a country thinks that this missile shield might render their best weapons ineffective. As for terrorism, why build a missile when its cheaper, easier and more reliable to just smuggle the bomb into the country? ------------------ The Rockets will be the NBA champions. Believe.
but sheez, the rage on this board is ridiculous. ------------------ "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and STATISTICS..." - Mark Twain -
rage Darkhorse? behind the numeral characters (looks like I forgot one) were supposed to be e-t-c-h... fetching. Nothing wrong w/ that, eh? ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
So before U.S. built its shield system or whatever, all the other countries would just fight us? of launch nukes at us? please. the U.S. military can defeat the rest of the world in a conventional military war. the U.S. can destroy the rest of the world, literally destroy, in a nuclear war. either way, the other countries of the world have no choice but to stand by and watch us build defense. ------------------ The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?
Nomar, if memory serves correctly one of the biggest concerns about a super-duper shield is that it could be used as an offensive weapon... a 'first strike' weapon like the Kraszny Octobre. ------------------ I keep plugging away, but I just can't get a 3 way to work on realwife.com
Notice though -- thee arguement used is that they don't want to start another arms race -- they don't mention anything about preventing a war. Which brings the question -- who would enter an arms race? Russia? India? Pakistan? They don't have the capability. The former Soviet Union certainly isn't worried about us -- we're financially bailing them out. They just scraped together enough money to send a few navy ships out for the first time in five years! Countries like India, Pakistan, etc., don't feel bound by the nuclear arms control treaties to begin with. The countries doing the complaining are worried because they don't want to spend the money to develop and/or deploy a missile defense system of their own. If the US deployed such a system, their citizens, who are obviously in much greater danger of such an attack, would demand one. They are trying to prevent a one-sided arms race which would force them to spend more money. ------------------ Stay Cool...
so we can beat the whole world if they decide to unite and attack us all at the same time? we're not the only country with fighter planes and tanks you know? this would destroy the US as well so that's pretty much an empty threat. ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited February 01, 2001).]
IF we end up taking a missile attack from another country at some point...and IF hundreds or thousands are killed...and IF someone close to you is killed....why the hell would you care, at that point, what other nations thought about a missile defense system that, if it could have been deployed correctly at some earlier point, would have saved those lives? I'm not an isolationist...but I am concerned the pendulum has shifted to far to the other side. In the end, we have some interests of our own that are simply our interests. One of those interests is the lives and well-being of our citizens. Those issues are not the interests of France, Italy or Germany. And they owe us no obligation to protect those interests. The US government, on the other hand, does owe us that. In fact, I'd argue, that's the most important function of the federal government. Arguably it's why the states became united in the first place. ------------------
Achebe- first strike capability is not the point behind the defense system. the protection of American citizens is. Outlaw- yes to your first question. the combined conventional military might of the U.S. is sufficient to protect the U.S. from an attack from the entire rest of the world at the same time. also, that second quote about mutually assured destruction was used to show that other countries couldnt really use nuclear weapons as part of their protest against our defense. ------------------ The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?
