Sure it exists. The money isn't wasted. It's still out there, circulating, buying beer and broads.
We even still have the research and the limited hardware.
So you admit your earlier statement about there being no missile defense in the US is wrong then?
Short memory partisan hacks have. I guess you gotta have a memory issue to be a hack eh?
Yes. PATRIOT is a theatre defense system not intended for defense against hypersonic stealthed war heads detectable only upon re-entry.
And which poor country with a history of instability is going to have that? :2wave:
Furthermore, there is
no such thing as a stealth MRV. A basic infrared camera will pick up any MRV coming in. It appears you do not understand what stealth is. What patriots suck at is determining which target is real and which is a decoy. Even the Israeli Arrow isn't good at that.
Nice fallacy of raising the bar. More dishonesty from you. Seems you like many hacks cannot argue honestly.
yes, you proved that adequately.
See above. I'm not the one thinking that a warhead during reentry can hide from infrared despite producing large amounts of friction.
What a hoot. Clearly, educating yourself is not something you care about. Even when it's basic science.
And being a hack means you never had to ask what MAD entailed.
on the contrary, I've forgotten more about it then you know...which honestly isn't much.
eace
Let's examine theory.
1) Mutual ....like it.
And that will stop us how? Furthermore, you think that Russia, China, Pakistan and India will actually condone a first nuclear strike and press the victim nation not to launch a secondary strike? Second, you think that Iran will launch a nuke knowing full well that we will turn them into glass? That may be stupidest thing I've read on this forum. Russia, China, Pakistan and India didn't like us invading Iraq. Did that stop us? We occupied an entire country over what actually
WAS a lie (See Curveball's recent confession). The idea that the US won't glass a country that nuked them first is absolutely ignorant of history.
And Russia, Pakistan, China and India will nuke the US over Iran attacking the US FIRST? Really? That may be worth a basement mockery.
That P, C, R and I will actually nuke a victim nation? THAT DEFINITELY IS BASEMENT MATERIAL. Thanks!
2) MAD assumes the attacker can be identified. This is baseless.
Hence why a state wouldn't use a missile. Hence my original point. Imagine that. A missile is instantly identifiable. That invites retaliation. Hence why I've long argued a nuke will come by panel van. Not a missile. And MAD only works against state, hence why the assumption is 100% correct at least in terms of missile exchange.
3) MAD assumes the other nuclear nations are led by sane people. Iran does not fall into this category, nor does North Korea, nor does Venezuela.
Actually they do fall quite nicely into that category. You are too much of a hack to bother to educate yourself on those countries. While I think that the leaders of all three are below human scum, they are sane. Iran in particular has yet to show a single incident where the leaders risked their hold on power, much less their lives. And they have had sufficient chemical weapons to wipe out Israel since the 60s. Except that Israel could wipe them out as well. I'd ask you to show a single incident where the Mullahs acted in a fashion that risked their hold over Iran but I won't because you, like everyone else I asked,
will just run away. Iran, North Korea and Venezuela are not lead by crazy people. They are lead by people who want to stay in power and who want to survive. That alone renders them sane.
Also, the future leadership of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc, is uncertain but good bets put al qaeda and Hamas in positions of significant influence.
Perhaps. Without Assad, the Islamic militants really don't have much support. Syria is a very interesting country if you bother to take the time to learn about its intricacies. As for the rest, too early to say.
4) Scenario: Assume Iran smuggles an ICBM to Hamas in Gaza, which launches at New York.
Thanks for proving you basically have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Iran possess nothing of such range, much less a warhead small enough to fit on such a missile. Second, Iran has
never given either Hizbollah or Hamas anything relatively advanced. You are basically saying that Iran will give Hamas a weapon that doesn't exist that would be the most advanced weapon they have, and let it out of their control to an organization that doesn't always follow Tehran.
I'd call you crazy....but you get the idea.
With plausible.....destruction.
Not really.
Thanks again for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. While you clearly do not know, every nuclear device has traces of where it was made, and from where the ore was mined. After an explosion residue of such impurities would basically allow the US to remove potential sources of where the material came from. Not to mention we'd have images of the missile. That alone would incriminate Iran.
A far more likely scenario (stop talking about thinks you demonstrate a glaring ignorance of) is that terrorists raid a facility in one of the FSU states, build a crude bomb with the help of a variety of merc scientists, smuggle parts into the US, build the weapon and transport it by van to a US city. That would incriminate Russia, but with Russia's massive insecurity regarding material and the fact that Russia has nothing to gain from an attack would rule them out. After that, it's hard to figure out who did it.
THAT is the reality of MAD.
You should actually read about MAD before talking about it. You basically demonstrated massive ignorance.
MAD is fit for children. MAD will kill children. It barely worked with only two players. It cannot work with proliferated network of arms now in existence.
I agree. MAD doesn't work on stateless actors. But stateless actors don't have ICBMs. Or nukes that will fit on an ICBM. But you
totally screwed up what MAD talks about applying it to something that it never discusses.
If you haven't noticed I actually agree with your stance that MAD doesn't work in today's world where the real threats come from (hence why I stated from the beginning a nuke
won't come via missile). State use of nukes is pretty much nil. It's those stateless actors that we must worry about.
Note to hack: Iran hasn't completed it's nuclear weapons development program yet.
Note to real hack: Iran isn't even close. Getting a nuke isn't hard. Any chemistry major knows the process. The problem is getting a nuke to a small size, with reliable missile technology of sufficient range, with enough missiles to take out a second strike. Not even the USSR had that capacity.
However, it's missile launch system tests are impressive. They'll be able to launch their bombs when they finish building them.
Really? So much so that they constantly fake their results?
You mean, despite their reluctance to melt Mecca? Or despite the fact that Iran and SA don't share a common border, but share a common export, making it difficult for them to wage any kind of a war at all.
You really outta look at a map of the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia has stated in leaked wires that it wants the US to attack Iran. And the reliance on oil doesn't mean squat. In fact a rise in oil prices from a conflict would help Iran. And one does not need to wage total war. I doubt you know the difference between that and limited.
Yes, we are discussing Iran. Hmmm....what does Iran export? Oh, yeah, hundreds of millionsn of barrels of oil, for sale at a hundred bucks each. Believe it or not, your computer is also a calculator, so you have no excuse for not doing the math.
Was that your argument? Iran is also facing massive pressures to maintain subsidies on a variety of domestic produces not to mention buying refined petroleum products at market prices.
And Iran does not get $100 per barrel. That's not the wholesale price. Seriously, do you know anything? Oil transfers go through a variety of middlemen. Furthermore, Iran does not generate the same type of oil as Saudi Arabia. That will further reduce the wholesale price Iran gets. Iran currently faces a foreign debt of $44 billion.
So no, they don't have that kind of money to freely spend. Seriously, have you even bothered to use Google?
Well, you need to learn how to put yourself in the shoes of your typical muslim national leader cum terrorist.
You mean like always sending someone else to die for you and never risking your power ever? Oh wait. You have no support in history. At all.
yes, you feel the urge to devolve to petty insult because the long eleven letter word (starts with an "L", see it) is too hard to say for hacks that lack the imagination to construct valid arguments.
I'm not the one who argued Russia will nuke the US over Iran. Valid you say? I'm not the one who argued that Iran gets wholesale price for Brent Crude. I'm not the one who argued that warheads reentering the atmosphere generate no friction.
Sorry, the Mayor beat you to it. That he read your post first doesn't mean anything when playing by Calvinball rules.
Oh I can put myself in stupid shoes. I then remove myself quickly.
You mean why get a dozen imaginary warheads smuggled in without any risk of the imaginary missile defense.
Technically they aren't warheads. They are merely nuclear devices. And a nuke via panel van fears no missile defense.
The United States doesn't have missile defense. Yet.
Not according to your
own post.
Other than those inconvenient truths, your point was almost valid. But only almost.
You can't even remember what you argued. Really.
it's irrelevant how the vengeance weapons are delivered, once we've already suffered casualties here.
Actually it is. Without a second strike invulnerable to a first strike, nukes become usable.
Amazingly, how is a nation to target a choo-choo train on the rails?
The same way it targets everything else.
Will the spy have on the minute awareness of when his masters will launch?
No, he'll just relay the locations of the hidden nukes on a regular basis the same way the US relays the location of Russia and Chinese subs. Not hard really. Sure the spy is toast, but one must sacrifice.
How will the spy know which carriages carry active missiles and how many carry Quaker guns?
He won't. But considering the USSR had more nukes the necessary to destroy the entire planet several times over, it really doesn't matter the number of Quaker guns.
Perhaps the entire MX missile system can be a diversion to consume enemy resources.
So the same thing as Reagan's Star Wars?
And, amazingly, it's not easy to sabotage a rail system patrolled and monitored by the military, and naturally if threats of sabotage are of concern, it's a simple matter to run train convoys to that dummy trains will pass over the suspected areas without damage to the weapons.
Actually it is easy. If you have separate systems of rail for the MX, then you sabotage those. Or tag them for a nuke. That's as bad as the large turns the Russians needed for their mobile launchers. And it's impossible to patrol the rest of the civilian rail which is the only real way to hide the back up nukes. And once you run dummy trains, the real ones can't move as the tracks are damaged. Sitting ducks.
There's plenty of good reason rail for nukes was a bad idea.
For the stupid.
Actually you like it.
What did they use, donkeys?
Go educate yourself. It has to do with the size of the mobile launch pads and the necessary turn radius needed.