True, the Soviets did not want to get invovled, but they didn't really want us to know that - they proliferated at rapid rates, always trying to keep up or go ahead of us, they "tested" weapons close enough to the US so that we could see exactly how they could hurt us (without knowing too much) and they made it known that they had nukes aimed at our major cities. I honestly, just see NK as trying to get away with their continued craziness, not as actually wanting a nuclear war - if that were true, they would strike first with everything they had. Cohen, Six in one, half a dozen in the other...isn't it all the same? By the way, does your first name start with an "R"?
We have 2 ABL (Airborne Laser) prototypes. Working prototypes. We also have ground based lasers that can shoot down tube-launched and rocket artillery shells. An ABM laser is not far off at all.
Have you seen the newest Laser defense systems that will shoot down artillery shells in mid flight? A similar setup is being worked on for missile defense. I'm not nearly as opposed to a laser-based system as a missile-based system. For starters, the physics of it is far, far more reasonable. Two missiles in opposing directions travelling at 10kmph trying to hit each other just doesn't seem to me a formula for success. With lasers, you miss, you shoot again and again and again. If you can get the energy issue taken care of, I think this is far more useful in the long-term. In addition, it seems to me a missile-based defense system is much more easily countered. They change the way their offensive missile flies (make it change trajectories in mid-air, accelerate differently, etc) and we have to redesign much of the missile-defense system. Lasers can more easily be targeted. All that said, I think this is somewhat like the airport security issue. If NK knows we have missile defense, they'll find other ways to use nukes. They aren't going to fire missiles and get them shot down. Similarly, all the airport security after 9/11 was really just to make people <I>feel</I> safe, because terrorists look for weaknesses to exploit. If they have another attack planned, they would simply find any one of thousands of other methods available to them. While a functional missile defense may make us safer from a nuclear missile fired at us, I'm not sure it really makes us much safer from a nuclear attack in general.
Major: I think you will have a hard time arguing that we would not be any safer with a working missile defense. Obviously, that will still leave other avenues of attack open (and they are already open, it's not like they would just suddenly become options because a missile was out), but the fact of the matter is that such a defense would certainly close off one avenue of attack to potential adversaries. That does not mean that once we get a missile defense we simply relax; we obviously have to defend against nuclear attack in other ways (most importantly concerning border security). But to think it would not enhance our defense is absurd. Of course it would. It is not intended to be a panacea, but an integral cog in the overall national defense.
I think you will have a hard time arguing that we would not be any safer with a working missile defense. Oh, I don't doubt we'd be safer that way. I'm sure there are lots of things we could spend money on that would make us a little bit safer. That doesn't make them worth the money, though. I know, some people will come back and say "how can you put a cost on our security", but that's just avoiding the argument. If a working missile defense cost us $20 trillion, no one would be arguing for it even if it was 100% effective. At some point, cost has to be considered as compared to the potential benefits of it. I don't personally see the benefits of it to be worth the costs b/c I think it makes us marginally safer at very high costs. If NK really, truly wanted to hit us with a nuke, I don't think it would be significantly more difficult for them if we had a missile-defense system or not. They would simply find another route instead of launching a missile.
Idiots! When will these little piss-ant countries quit trying to scare the US? Hey Kim, have you ever heard of the B1 Stealth Bomber? If we truely felt you were a threat to our country, you wouldn't even know what hit you. So, shut up!
Major: As I said previously, I used to be against it as well, a primary reason being that the costs involved would prevent us from procuring more important items to ensure our defense. All of the items I used to be concerned about have already been budgeted for. Exactly what items are you worried about? The cost is not going to be $20 trillion or even 1% of that. Yes, it will be expensive, but we can afford it. The question is whether or not the cost will prevent us from procuring other important items, and the answer is that it will not (as I used to think as well). Its costs are spread out over many years, so as not to push anything else out of the budget. As I said, though, it is only a part of our defense against nuclear attack. How can you deny that it is an important part of such a defense? It is a necessary first step - the first tier of such a defense. If you don't protect against ballistic missile attack, then why bother defending against any other form? We know that a number of hostile countries will soon have missiles with sufficient range to strike us. So if we leave them that avenue of attack, then why bother defending our borders? Our harbors? They won't have to sneak one over here, they can just launch a missile at us... The argument you used against it can be turned reversed and used as a primary argument for it... That should tell you something about that particular argument. In order to defend against a nuclear attack, we must defend all possible avenues, or we defend none at all. And that includes the ballistic missile avenue.
As I said previously, I used to be against it as well, a primary reason being that the costs involved would prevent us from procuring more important items to ensure our defense. All of the items I used to be concerned about have already been budgeted for. Exactly what items are you worried about? I'm looking at the budget as a whole, which is in a massive deficit for the foreseeable future. If you have a huge expense in there which really doesn't make us significantly safer, it seems like a good thing to axe. The cost is not going to be $20 trillion or even 1% of that. Yes, it will be expensive, but we can afford it. The question is whether or not the cost will prevent us from procuring other important items, and the answer is that it will not (as I used to think as well). Its costs are spread out over many years, so as not to push anything else out of the budget. The $20T was just an example of a ridiculous cost. If something did cost $20T, even if it solved world hunger, made us 100% safe, ended all disease, etc, we would be against it because it would bankrupt the country. No matter how great the potential benefits, cost always always always has to be considered. This was just my pre-emptive strike at the people who always come out and say "how can you put a value on our safety". In order to defend against a nuclear attack, we must defend all possible avenues, or we defend none at all. And that includes the ballistic missile avenue. I agree. I'd like to see a comprehensive plan proposed and see the comprehensive cost of it. Then I could make a better judgement about the overall cost/benefits of it. As is, all I've got is an expensive missile defense system that, by itself, doesn't really do much in terms of our overall safety. If the other components of this plan are presented later and turn out to be ridiculously expensive and/or ineffective, then the Missile Defense was a waste of money. If its a part of a comprehensive plan (which it should be), it should be presented as such.
Is it possible to intercept a nuclear warhead by flying something into it. Even it that something has to be a suicide pilot. I guess I'm confused as to why it's impossible to disrupt the path of a nuclear missile. Anybody?
It is like stopping a bullet by shooting another bullet at it. And that does not take into account countermeasures... It is very difficult.
How do you know for sure? Perhaps we should set up sanctions and inspection teams. btw, I'm with Major as to favoring the physics of laser-based systems. As for the funding of it, I have, for a long time, been against it... until recently, that is.
It's a B-2, Hottoddie, a B-2! But hey! I'll trade ten B-2's for a pay-raise and benefit increase for the armed forces, full funding for munitions and training while actually using them instead of just computer simulations (there IS a difference!), one or two divisions that were cut, a few dozen of the ships in mothballs, a few Air Force Wings that were cut, some R & D for some 'black projects"... I would take that or a combination of that for those B-2's and raise you a much higher level of national defense. Yes, indeed I would.
In one sortie a single B-2 can either destroy a small-to-mid-sized country, destroy 16 separate hardened targets, or kill a very large number of ground troops (numbers depending on concentration). It is the single most powerful weapon ever invented by mankind. A fleet of 20 of them was designed to be able to win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union. That fleet could deliver exactly 320 thermonuclear weapons in a surprise first strike, which probably would have actually been enough to win a nuclear war... We have 20 of them, and will likely be building more soon. They work equally well using conventional weapons. I will take two B-2s over an army division, an aircraft carrier, or an air wing any day, because they would be able to do something that none of the other units could do: destroy an enemy with precision, surgical strikes and with 100% impunity.
There are many problems. It's like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. We are making progress though.
I think removing the delivery mechanism most readily available to the country in question makes us significantly safer. Not sure how you think it doesn't. You can't just pull up a ship in Inchon, load a nuke on it, and sail into LA or Seattle. At some point some other country is going to have to participate in the transportation of the weapon, and that significantly reduces the risk of it happening. Mainly because that country would then assume risk of retaliation from the US. With a ballistic missle, Crazy J in NK can launch whenever. The risk is significantly higher now, without BMD. As far as cost, don't underestimate the benefits such programs have on the economy in terms of technology spinoffs.
It's a little worse, actually. Give the bullets non-linear guidance mechanisms and decisions that need to be made more quickly than a nanosecond. Non trivial!
