• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US successfully tests anti-missile shield

Truth Detector said:
You're kidding me right? You don't think we are already throwing money into the sinkhole called public education and getting nothing for it?? :shock:
Click to expand...

Of course I'm kidding. Citing education and health care was meant to serve as a tool to make him reexamine his position on the throwing money logic.
 
obvious Child said:
Of course I'm kidding. Citing education and health care was meant to serve as a tool to make him reexamine his position on the throwing money logic.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhkay.....I am not sure I like helping you with your argument. :3oops:

:rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
Ohhhhhkay.....I am not sure I like helping you with your argument. :3oops:

:rofl
Click to expand...

I personally like the ratio of resources to kills that is brought up in World War Z. We should make decisions about defense based on how many people (in that the book Zombies) we can kill with certain resources. The fewer resources to more kills is the better option. Of course it's not applicable everywhere (aka, rescues and medivac or non-lethal operations) but it's not a bad way to look at defense spending.
 
I wonder what the libs from the Reagan era must think now LOL.
It only took 25 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Too bad that if a WMD enters this country, it would enter through our poorly protected ports.


We shouldn't have started this in 1983. The technology wasn't advanced enough to do a task so complicated. So most SDI funding in the 20th century was a waste. It was only within the past decade that we were able to progress this.
 
Pinu7 said:
I wonder what the libs from the Reagan era must think now LOL.
It only took 25 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Too bad that if a WMD enters this country, it would enter through our poorly protected ports.


We shouldn't have started this in 1983. The technology wasn't advanced enough to do a task so complicated. So most SDI funding in the 20th century was a waste. It was only within the past decade that we were able to progress this.
Click to expand...

I would put forth the argument that the mere psychology of SDI was what assisted the final break up of the Soviet Union. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Russia started to come to the realization that they could never win the arms race while their nation starved.

It could be said that it was worth every penny spent; it’s just another view of the argument, carry on.
 
A few things noone seems to be addressing:

On Public Education- We have enough idiots in America, do we really need MORE by not at least giving an education to those that cannot afford it? Do we really need to punish children because parents refuse to support the educational needs of their children? This could lead to cheap private schools that don't offer quality education, but are just cheaper than the other schools around (capitalism).

On measures taken by incoming missiles to "fool" the missile defense system: The nature of an attack is to be one step ahead of the defense. Obviously if Russia or China hits us with something new, then there's no way our missile defense will be ready for it and we'll have taken a hit ANYWAY. That's the problem with reactionary defenses. The action must be performed and taken into account to defend against it. And also, if China mass produces 10 missiles filled with some form of WMD, but then also shoots off 90 pseudo-missiles that are extremely cheap to make (since they have no live ammo) but also appear identical to the live missile by artificial intelligence systems, then how does that help us? The probability of shooting EVERY SINGLE ONE of those missiles down without letting any of them reach us is very low. Not to mention what happens if a biological agent is exploded into the ocean near a US coastline. Also, we have to hit the fake missiles with our real missiles since we have no idea which ones are fake or live. Thus for each fake missile that China sends over costing X dollars, we spend 10X dollars countering it.

Not like Russia needs long-range missiles anyway. Apparently a civilian living in Russia could shoot Sarah Palin from his home.

Also, seems like noone has really been reading into the tests, only glancing at the headlines:
From U.S. hails missile shield test but doubts remain | Reuters
The U.S. military said on Friday it conducted a successful test of its missile defense system, but the target failed to deploy measures that experts said could have helped it avoid destruction.
Click to expand...
However, the 40-year-old target missile failed to deploy counter-measures. O'Reilly declined to say what those measures were but they can include decoys or chaff -- tiny strips of metal foil used to confuse radar systems.
Click to expand...
But critics of the program, which the Pentagon says has cost about $100 billion since 1999, said it was unrealistic to expect the United States would face any missile threat that did not include counter-measures.

"Any country with the technical capability and the motivation to fire a long-range missile at the U.S. would also have the technical capability and the motivation to add decoys to it that are designed to defeat the defense," David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said by email.
Click to expand...

We shoot down one defenseless missile under controlled conditions. Whoop-dee-do. Considering all of the missions have been controlled before, why don't we have a 100% kill ratio?
 
Truth Detector said:
I would put forth the argument that the mere psychology of SDI was what assisted the final break up of the Soviet Union. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. Reagan and the defense contractors knew it wouldn't work, it was just that the fear of a working defense shield would cause Russia to spend huge amounts of rubbles on more warheads, more delivery vehicles, and more counter measures. All of which pushed them towards bankruptcy. The trick was just getting them to spend more then we did it.
 
Pinu7 said:
I wonder what the libs from the Reagan era must think now LOL.
We shouldn't have started this in 1983.
Click to expand...
We didnt. We started in 1996. The NMD and SDI are related only in that they both shoot down incoming ICBMs.
 
Kandahar said:
Great. As long as our enemies are courteous enough to fire one missile at a time and alert us to the schedule and trajectory, their missiles are toast!
Click to expand...
Yours is an overly silly post.
 
Goobieman said:
Yours is an overly silly post.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we all know the main reason for the missile defense is to prevent a counter attack. We will know exactly when our enemies fire on us, because it will be in response to an aggression by us or one of our allies to "achieve greater stability in the region".
 
shiznit770 said:
Yeah, we all know the main reason for the missile defense is to prevent a counter attack.
Click to expand...
The only people that 'know' this are those desperate to discredit the NMD in any way they stll can.
 
Truth Detector said:
I would argue that MAD assures mutual destruction while the anti-ballistic missle system offers an alternative that would not requires the complete assured destruction of mankind.

::shrugs::
Click to expand...

Because MAD assures mutual destruction it prevents us from being attacked. We don't need this.
 
obvious Child said:
I personally like the ratio of resources to kills that is brought up in World War Z. We should make decisions about defense based on how many people (in that the book Zombies) we can kill with certain resources. The fewer resources to more kills is the better option. Of course it's not applicable everywhere (aka, rescues and medivac or non-lethal operations) but it's not a bad way to look at defense spending.
Click to expand...

While not a bad idea, resource to kill ratio is a lot harder to come up with in the real world against an enemy that can think. Characters in WWZ were able to use it because there enemy just walked up to them and all that was needed was a bullet to the head. In the real world the resources we spend save lives. Except for this program.

However, I am willing to admit that hindsight is 20/20 and if one of our cities is attacked I'll be the first to be clamoring for billions for this system. Or maybe I'm just paranoid from playing Fallout 3.
 
Kandahar said:
Great. As long as our enemies are courteous enough to fire one missile at a time and alert us to the schedule and trajectory, their missiles are toast!
Click to expand...

I can see its viability against enemies that only have the resources to fire single missiles such as North Korea or Iran.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Because MAD assures mutual destruction it prevents us from being attacked. We don't need this.
Click to expand...
Againt the Russians and Chinese, you are correct.

However, the NMD is intended to keep screwballs like Iran and North Korea from launching a missle or two (up to 50, in its final form) -- Rogue States who are nowhere as predictable.
 
Last edited:
Smoke[MaxX] said:
A few things noone seems to be addressing:

On Public Education- We have enough idiots in America, do we really need MORE by not at least giving an education to those that cannot afford it? Do we really need to punish children because parents refuse to support the educational needs of their children? This could lead to cheap private schools that don't offer quality education, but are just cheaper than the other schools around (capitalism)
Click to expand...

False choice.

Not like Russia needs long-range missiles anyway. Apparently a civilian living in Russia could shoot Sarah Palin from his home.
Click to expand...

According to Tina Fey, I guess. :roll:

We shoot down one defenseless missile under controlled conditions. Whoop-dee-do. Considering all of the missions have been controlled before, why don't we have a 100% kill ratio?
Click to expand...

LMAO! Are you serious? Your standard would have us foregoing any new research and development unless testing would prove to be 100% successful.

Why don't we have a 100% kill ratio? Well, lets see, maybe because shooting a missile at another missile is massively complex operation. Your thinking would have had the US abandon even SAM development knowing that SAM testing didn't result in 100% success. :roll:
 
shiznit770 said:
You forgot to include those who aren't paranoid of unprovoked attacks.
Click to expand...
If you think you can show that the NMD is intended to protect the US from a Russian resiudal 2nd strike after a pre-empritve US strike, please do.

Otherwise, you;re just talking out your butt.

Please make sure you account for Russian SLBM capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
If you think you can show that the NMD is intended to protect the US from a Russian resiudal 2nd strike after a pre-empritve US strike, please do.

Otherwise, you;re just talking out yout butt.

Please make sure you account for the Russian SLBM capabilities.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Russia in this thread, these missiles are currently to subdue any response from the ME.

I love how you respond with ridiculous statements acting as if I said anything even close to them.
 
[QUOTE='Smoke[MaxX]
We shoot down one defenseless missile under controlled conditions. Whoop-dee-do. Considering all of the missions have been controlled before, why don't we have a 100% kill ratio?
[/QUOTE]
Of the three misses, 2 came from failures in surrogate stystmes being used as a stand-in for parts of the NMD system that had not yet been installed/produced.

Never mind that most people know that NO system is 100%.
 
shiznit770 said:
I never mentioned Russia in this thread, these missiles are currently to subdue any response from the ME.
Click to expand...
You said:

Yeah, we all know the main reason for the missile defense is to prevent a counter attack.
Click to expand...

Who/what were you taking about, if not preventing a counter-attack from the Russians after a US first-strike?
 
Goobieman said:
You said:



Who/what were you taking about, if not preventing a counter-attack from the Russians after a US first-strike?
Click to expand...

Lets say Iran sending a missile towards Israel after they attack Iran's nuclear program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom