• 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

Harshaw said:
Because it can be targeted on things other than ICBMs . . . ?
Click to expand...

Such as? We already have weapons that can take out satellites. We already have weapons to take out cruise missiles. We already have weapons that can shoot down planes. We already have weapons against air to surface.

So what exactly are we targeting with missile defense other then ICBMs?
 
scourge99 said:
apathy incurs its own debt.

You presented a false dichotomy. That was childish.
Click to expand...

And caring too much burdens one with others problems.

Sarcasm often leads to dichotomies, I'm sorry the effect is lost on you.

that's an impossible question to answer with the overly simplified scenario you haved posed. There are just causes for war and Iran is more than capable of instigating such.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting Israel, which has said openly that it is considering a preemptive strike on Iran, would not attack Iran unprovoked?

US and Israel intelligence believe Iran has a nuclear weapons based on little more than fear and hypothetical situations. Is it wrong for me to trust the US's judgment over Israels?
 
shiznit770 said:
You're right, lets give Israel the best damn missile defense system money can buy. That way when they attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran won't be able to counter-attack!
Click to expand...
You -continue- to make this claim, with NO support for the idea that this is the intent of the system.
Why?
 
shiznit770 said:
When we are incurring such a large debt I am critical of any program that does not bring significant gain to us.
Click to expand...
Compare:
Cost of system v cost of 250kt nuke going off over Seattle.

There is a big difference between coming to the aid of an Allie and preemptively arming them
Click to expand...
Still making a claim you cannot support...
 
obvious Child said:
Explain how it's not.
Click to expand...
There are many kinds of interceptors:
Strategic/national defense, for ICBMs
Theater/area defense, for IRBMs and tactical battlefield missiles
Area/point defense, for smaller tactical battlefield missiles.
Examples can be provided at your request.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Explain how North Korea and Iran are not predictable.
Click to expand...
Listen to their rhetoric.
No one know what they are going to do, including them - thus, unpredictable.
Either state having an operational nuke and a missle platform that could reach the US should cause you GREAT concern.
 
shiznit770 said:
I would argue that the entire program as a whole is not without merit. It is certain elements of it that are unnecessary, like providing defense in the form of interceptors and radar to other countries(Poland/Czech/Israel). These parts of the program promote political divisiveness with essentially no gain for the US.
Click to expand...

My goodness...you people continue to amaze me. It's like political divisiveness is the most evil sin imaginable. Look, there will always be political divisivenes. The way you think about it, though, always has the US subjugating her sovereignty and national security to avoid politically offending countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. This is, at best, naive, and at worst, a suicide pact.

Why is it that for you people the US must always abandon her interests? It's always that the US is the bad guy, the aggressor, the imperialist. Pathetic anti-Americanism charading as international diplomacy.

Makes me sick.
 
shiznit770 said:
You're right, lets give Israel the best damn missile defense system money can buy. That way when they attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran won't be able to counter-attack! I wonder what will happen when you corner an extremist country and provoke them? Meh, whatever happens we can just blame it on Islam again, right?
Click to expand...

There you go, again...the US is always the bad guy, the provcateur, right? In this instance, it's the US backing Iran into a corner and Iran is just a victim of US/Israeli aggression.

I mean, it's not like Iran has not been waging war against by proxy against both the US and Israel. It's not Iran is not a brutally repressive regime that has already developed wmd's and, by their own admissions, are intent on developing nukes as well as "annihilating" Israel.

But, rather, it is the US that is the problem.

Sick. Weak. Pathetic.
 
Goobieman said:
You -continue- to make this claim, with NO support for the idea that this is the intent of the system.
Why?
Click to expand...

Because it is more reasonable than your claim that the US is under threat of an unprovoked Missile attack. At least I've shown evidence supporting my claim, you can't even do that.
 
shiznit770 said:
Because it is more reasonable...
Click to expand...
Your argument is based on nothing more than your assumptions, preonceptions and prejudices. Thus, there no 'reason' involved.

At least I've shown evidence supporting my claim, you can't even do that.
Click to expand...
You've shown no such thing, after having been asked to do so numerous times.
 
JMak said:
My goodness...you people continue to amaze me. It's like political divisiveness is the most evil sin imaginable. Look, there will always be political divisivenes. The way you think about it, though, always has the US subjugating her sovereignty and national security to avoid politically offending countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. This is, at best, naive, and at worst, a suicide pact.

Why is it that for you people the US must always abandon her interests? It's always that the US is the bad guy, the aggressor, the imperialist. Pathetic anti-Americanism charading as international diplomacy.

Makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Do you have any personal interests that the US is protecting? I certainly don't. I find it sick that a democracy is going to war for the sake of a few. I say let them suffer the consequences for exploiting another country. That's capitalism. When you enter military into the equation it becomes Imperialism.
 
shiznit770 said:
Because it is more reasonable than your claim that the US is under threat of an unprovoked Missile attack. At least I've shown evidence supporting my claim, you can't even do that.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen him make such a claim. However, yeah, one purpose of this defense shield is to defend against missile attack. That a threat is not imminent or even likely within, say, 5 years, doesn't render the system unjustified.

If that is your logic then why ever have considered constructing any number of weapons systems beyond bows and arrows, rocks, horses, etc.? The utility in developing new weapons systems, offensive or defensive, is to gain tactical or strategic advantage.

Imagine that Iraq develops a nuke missile capability. The point-of-no-return has been reached. Now Iran has the ability to hold us politically hostage. It's their advantage. A missile shield mitigates that advantage, hopefully fully, but nonetheless mitigates their advantage.

That's the point.
 
shiznit770 said:
Do you have any personal interests that the US is protecting? I certainly don't. I find it sick that a democracy is going to war for the sake of a few. I say let them suffer the consequences for exploiting another country. That's capitalism. When you enter military into the equation it becomes Imperialism.
Click to expand...

What war is being waged for a few as you claim?

And, no, waging war is not imperialism. Nice try to redefine words to simply suit your partisan hackery.
 
JMak said:
I haven't seen him make such a claim. However, yeah, one purpose of this defense shield is to defend against missile attack. That a threat is not imminent or even likely within, say, 5 years, doesn't render the system unjustified.
Click to expand...
And, this is the expressed intent of the system.
He claims that there is another intent, and hasnt been even close to ofering support for that claim.

Fact of the matter is, countries like Iran and NK ARE developing missiles that can reach us and our allies. That creates a threat. The NMD is in response to that threat.

There's NO reason why we should not have the capability to shoot these missiles down, should the need arise.
 
shiznit770 said:
Do you have any personal interests that the US is protecting? I certainly don't.
Click to expand...
That the US is protecting... with the NMD?
You certainly do.
 
JMak said:
I haven't seen him make such a claim. However, yeah, one purpose of this defense shield is to defend against missile attack. That a threat is not imminent or even likely within, say, 5 years, doesn't render the system unjustified.

If that is your logic then why ever have considered constructing any number of weapons systems beyond bows and arrows, rocks, horses, etc.? The utility in developing new weapons systems, offensive or defensive, is to gain tactical or strategic advantage.

Imagine that Iraq develops a nuke missile capability. The point-of-no-return has been reached. Now Iran has the ability to hold us politically hostage. It's their advantage. A missile shield mitigates that advantage, hopefully fully, but nonetheless mitigates their advantage.

That's the point.
Click to expand...

So we're bankrupting ourselves because of a threat 5 years away and that threat will only be realized with provocation. By your logic any country with nuclear capabilities could "hold us politically hostage". Are you really so deluded as to think this will happen? The only reason you believe this is because the hack of a president Bush said we should be afraid. I see all of the Neo-cons for what they really are. Cowards.

I wonder if scourge99 will come back and call you a child for making a "false dichotomy".
 
shiznit770 said:
So we're bankrupting ourselves because of a threat 5 years away and that threat will only be realized with provocation.
Click to expand...
1: You always try to stay ahead of the threat
2: "provocation" means different things to you and them.
To them, "provocation" may mean "having the audacity to exist".

That is, your thought that they would -only- attack us becaise of something we did to harm them directly is unfounded.

I see all of the Neo-cons for what they really are. Cowards.
Click to expand...
Ah -- the ad hom. Sure sign of a 'reasonable" argument. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Russia is threatened by a defensive measure? This is ridiculous. The Russians are basically asking the US to keep the missile defence system down so they can attack if needs be. DEFENCE system - that 'defence' part is the key here as it not, in fact, 'attack' and thus not directly a threat to Russia.
 
Richard Nixon said:
Russia is threatened by a defensive measure? This is ridiculous. The Russians are basically asking the US to keep the missile defence system down so they can attack if needs be. DEFENCE system - that 'defence' part is the key here as it not, in fact, 'attack' and thus not directly a threat to Russia.
Click to expand...
Yes. The NMD has no effect on Russian deterrence.
 
Goobieman said:
1: You always try to stay aread of the threat
2: "provocation" means different things to you and them.
To them, "provocation" may mean "having the audacity to exist".

That is, your thought that they would -only- attack us becaise of something we did to harm themn directly is unfounded.


Ah -- the ad hom. Sure sign of a 'reasonable" argument.
Click to expand...

1. Prove there is a threat.
2. Your misunderstanding of others is the root of your fear.

Ah the discarding of evidence and an opposing view. Sure sign of an ideologue.
 
shiznit770 said:
1. Prove there is a threat.
Click to expand...
Asde from the fact that I said "stay ahead of the threat" precludes any necessity of this...
There in no question whatsoever that both Iran and NK are developing missiles that can reach the areas protected by the NMD.
Missiles - North Korea Special Weapons
Iran Missiles
(Note that these sites are not up-to-date)

2. Your misunderstanding of others is the root of your fear.
Click to expand...
LOL
Don't have a counter-argument, so you side-step by claiming that I am afraid.
LOL

Ah the discarding of evidence and an opposing view. Sure sign of an ideologue.
Click to expand...
You havent provided any evidence to discard.
Disagree?
Show any evidence whatsoever that the NMD is intended to protect the US or its alloes from a residual second-strike missile attack.

Then tell me why you think it is a bad idea for the US to be able to shoot down a nuclear-tipped ICBM launched at an American city.
 
shiznit770 said:
So we're bankrupting ourselves because of a threat 5 years away and that threat will only be realized with provocation. By your logic any country with nuclear capabilities could "hold us politically hostage". Are you really so deluded as to think this will happen? The only reason you believe this is because the hack of a president Bush said we should be afraid. I see all of the Neo-cons for what they really are. Cowards.

I wonder if scourge99 will come back and call you a child for making a "false dichotomy".
Click to expand...

That wasn't a false dichotomy. So you are safe this time. :mrgreen:

Its just speculation which you are entitiled to.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. The NMD has no effect on Russian deterrence.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't tell whether this is sarcasm.

Well, it does but not in any way of substance. The missile defence isn't as refined as it sounds, at least not yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom