• 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!

Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

Your facts really aren’t relevant unless you are making the assumption that the USA is going to sell a compact nuke to someone who will use it on us. Even Russia falls behind the US when it comes to building compact nukes.

Not China. Clinton handed China free access to our W88 technology for campaign cash.

Besides, you are now talking about weapons grade plutonium that has a unique signature that would be traced back to one of the few nations in the world capable of producing such devices. In other words, we aren’t going to have a small, powerful suitcase nuke go off without knowing exactly where it came from and even then, the damage would be a fraction of the devices you list because it would be a ground burst explosion rather than an air burst explosion.

Your statement was that nuclear weapons are large.

Your statement was refuted.

The only thing terrorist are going to throw at us in the way of suitcase types of bombs will really be dirty bombs that will cause more panic than actual damage. So the claim that a suitcase bomb or panel van bomb is cheaper and just as effective as an ICBM is total hogwash any way you slice it.

Right, and the only thing terrorists can do to us is the occasional mail bomb or pizza-shop killing. Then Oklahoma City and 9-11 happened...

Why do you insist on placing imaginary limits on people you know nothing about?

[/quote]The argument is a strawman argument anyway. Just because someone can list other possible threats doesn’t remove the obvious threat of an incoming missile.[/QUOTE]

You are aware that Mayor Snorkum is a proponent of the strongest possible missile defenses and continued research in that field, right?
 
Not China. Clinton handed China free access to our W88 technology for campaign cash.
China can’t build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.

Your statement was that nuclear weapons are large.

Your statement was refuted.
My statement was in the context of what a terrorist group could theoretically get their hands on. I’m fully aware of the US and USSR producing micro nukes but this isn’t an episode of “24” and terrorists aren’t going to get their hands on any of those, if they even still exist.

Right, and the only thing terrorists can do to us is the occasional mail bomb or pizza-shop killing. Then Oklahoma City and 9-11 happened...
Red Herring Alert. Stop wasting my time with such trivial drool.

Why do you insist on placing imaginary limits on people you know nothing about?
Another Red Herring.

I place reasonable limits on anyone who doesn’t have the technical capacity to carry out a specific threat. If I told you I was going to blow up the moon would you call 911 or would you laugh it off? Thus far all you have done is point to the fact that the US has the ability to build very small nukes. Feel free to explain why I should be worried about one going off in a major US city.
 
Getting back to the topic of this post, the US MDA has proven that it can shoot down long to medium range missiles. Thus far the best argument against it has been Russia’s and China’s objection to it.

It will (and probably already is) protect our carrier groups and will eventually provide more protection to the US population. This is a defensive weapon system so I can’t see why anyone would oppose it unless they want Americans to be more vulnerable.

If I’m not representing the topic in a manner consistent with your views, let me know. I really don’t care what you socialists and communists have to say on the subject so go piss up another rope. I want to hear from real Americans.
 
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. :peace

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.

Since....desires.

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.

MX was a valid concept.

For the stupid.

The Soviets hated it

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.
 
China can’t build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.

There's a huge amount of detail that Mayor has no understanding about.

My statement was in the context of what a terrorist group could theoretically get their hands on. I’m fully aware of the US and USSR producing micro nukes but this isn’t an episode of “24” and terrorists aren’t going to get their hands on any of those, if they even still exist.

They are more likely to get a dirty bomb more than anything else. Or steal a regular size russian nuke. Backpack nukes are a myth.
 
I'm afraid from what I've read that Demon may have the upper hand in this one, oC.

Not a chance. I have yet to lose a discussion about missile defense or nuclear weapons. Demon, while far more knowledgeable then Mayor (seriously) doesn't scare me.
 
Of course I know about South Africa's nuclear program. Did you ever hear of A.Q. Khan selling his know-how or tech to non-state actors? No, because the nuclear black market gets big money from aspiring nuclear states, not paupers who can only afford to blow themselves up.

I never seriously argued that NSA will actually refine their own material into a sufficiently enriched material (that alone is a massive investment). While it may be possible to build a plutonium device that will work without enrichment the necessary reflectors and shaped charges necessary to actually it to work would make it all but unusable. It is far more likely that they'd simply steal it from a FSU state. And there are plenty of people out there with the knowledge how to reassemble or even make a crude nuke once the fissile material has been procured.

IMO, you and I aren't that far in terms of opinions.

Were you only talking about uranium? So now some rag-tag groups of guerrillas are going to actually build a nuclear weapon.

Once the material has been procured yes. Without the enriched fissile material, it's not going to happen. That's why we should be pushing Nunn-Lugar proposal to lock down all of the enriched and semi-enriched material across the globe. In Allison Graham's book "Nuclear Terrorism," he cites US scientists building a fissile free nuclear device from parts from Radio Shack. If we can build the weapon missing just the material, they can to.

Yeah, do you realize that they would need more than one nuclear scientist on the payroll to accomplish that? Better be able to pay them far more than they make working for national governments.

Likely. But it's not impossible, especially when you don't have to worry about the missile part. But the capacity to build a crude nuke and steal enriched is not implausible. The fact that people like Ted Turner dropped a huge sum of cash to fund the Belgrade clean up suggests people do consider it a real threat.

Yeah, because when countries realize someone stole one of their nukes [band enriched material] the last thing they are interested in doing is preventing it from leaving the country. I mean, they might have a convenience store robbery to investigate. Certainly don't want to divert resources from something important like that.

In countries that aren't screwed up like Russia? Absolutely. Do you see people trying to steal from France, UK or China? No. Because they actually have the resources to guard and protect. Ukraine and Russia? Not so much. I'm not worried about nukes and fissile in 1st world (well, US waste is another story). I'm worried about FSU states. And I know you don't think they have the best security around.

Sure, just duct tape a block of C4 onto that bitch and hook it up to your smart phone. That'll get the job done. :roll:

Not quite. Setting timers to bombs is easily done with a phone. Why not a nuke? It just is a really big bomb. Furthermore, most countries don't put the crazy arming devices that the US, France and UK have on their nukes. And terrorists won't bother with that.

Are you saying it is plausible for a non-state actor or are you saying that they would have to worry about more than getting it to the target?

I'm saying that a non-state actor, once it has a nuke, won't use a missile as that's the least reliable method of delivery.
 
There's a huge amount of detail that Mayor has no understanding about.



They are more likely to get a dirty bomb more than anything else. Or steal a regular size russian nuke. Backpack nukes are a myth.

So you support the MDA and agree that it should be one of the last military budgets to be cut and would prefer to see this budget increased if at all possible?
 
Can you please substantiate this assumption? If you can prove that these drills are performed in the manner you just described, I will join you in protesting future tests and expenditures on the program. If not, you need to admit that you are full of it.

I don't have a link for this test.

Did it say it was a unplanned test? Last I checked, every test was run with the interceptor crews already aware of the time, location and incoming direction of the single incoming missile with some of the earlier ones preprogrammed. And we STILL failed to hit 100% of the time.

My biggest dig with our "missile defense" is that it doesn't represent real tests. A real incoming salvo will be with multiple targets with decoys. They'll deploy mylar balloons to completely render radar useless and they won't be a scheduled time of launch. Not to mention the incoming missiles will be going a hell of a lot faster. And tested under bad weather conditions. Until we have a test where multiple bogeys are intercepted at top speed and decoys are rendered useless, this is just industrial welfare.

As understand it, we test under ideal conditions, with dumbed down decoy missiles (not radar confusing mylar) with slower speeds, one or a few targets, knowing when and where the test will occur. I don't see how that's anything to be proud of. It's like shooting the target that you control the speed, distance and movement of.
 
So you support the MDA and agree that it should be one of the last military budgets to be cut and would prefer to see this budget increased if at all possible?

Actually I think we should cut MDA immediately and beef up port and border security. As long as North Korea's leadership expects to stay in power, no nuke will be used. And Iran is not crazy. Nuclear launches from states is pretty much not going to happen. What we should be worrying about is the large amount of fissile material and loose nukes out there. Couple that with our uber-crappy border control and it's a real eye opener.
 
What makes you think that? Furthermore, why are we spending huge amounts to beef up radioactivity searches at ports? Since it won't work. :roll:
Let me start with the less obvious. You probably aren’t aware that anything enriched to weapons grade material is easily detected by satellite unless it is encased in massive amounts of extremely dense material. Trust me on this one.

As for why we are beefing up radioactivity searches at ports, it should be obvious that a ship can transport a nuclear devise while also enclosing it in said heavy encasing. Satellite detection isn’t as reliable when dealing with vessels that can transport huge payloads.



The net investment to produce a viable nuclear tipped ICBM that can successfully bypass the fledgling American Missile Defense at the same time as survive a Patriot missile volley is at least a billion dollars. The countries that can do this already have it and aren't really threats in that aspect. North Korea's missiles are more of a export rather then a real threat.

If Japan gets nuked by China, it would be a crushing economic blow to the USA and it would require a massive nuclear salvo in response due to our treaty obligations. Same goes for Taiwan and South Korea. Why not field a defensive shield that will detour such an attack rather than absorb it and escalate the carnage with a response that would be absolutely required?


It is also important to note that the US naval fleet needs to defend itself from missile attacks, nuclear or other, as well. Can you justify not defending an entire US carrier group against missile strikes?


In that aspect, Missile defense is stupid as the threat we face from nukes won't come via missile.
Again, you show your ignorance. The threat we face from missiles is the destruction they carry, whether they are armed with a nuke or not. Just because you can dream up countless other threat scenarios doesn’t reduce the threat that missiles pose to our bases around the world, our fleets across the oceans or our cities here in the USA.

If you hack my responses into little out of context pieces, I’ll show you no respect in the future. My paragraphs are small enough to quote so don't be a hack.
 
A strong defensive deterrent is much cheaper than just waiting to be forced to go on the offensive.
 
China can’t build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.

Yeah, whatever. W88 isn't a missile, it's a warhead technology.

My statement was in the context of what a terrorist group could theoretically get their hands on. I’m fully aware of the US and USSR producing micro nukes but this isn’t an episode of “24” and terrorists aren’t going to get their hands on any of those, if they even still exist.

So?

The Mayor's statements are in the context of someone have an ICBM shooting it at us. That's generally what ICBM missile defenses are for, and it matters not if the weapon is launched by a terrorist nation or a terrorist group or by smurfs. The need is to protect the nation from the incoming warhead.

Is that clear yet?

Red Herring Alert. Stop wasting my time with such trivial drool.

Stop wasting the forum's time by pretending you're incapable of seeing inferences posted in your face.


Or admit you're outclassed and can't figure out elementary rhetorical technique.

The purpos of the Mayor's references to the scaled up terrorists attack is plain.

Another Red Herring.

You seem to have difficulty recognizing when your arguments are blown out of the water and for some reason you see communist fish everywhere.

I place reasonable limits on anyone who doesn’t have the technical capacity to carry out a specific threat.

Yes, it was plain you like to underestimate the enemy if by doing so you can pretend to yourself that defending the United States is unnecessary.

Since, however, it was shown that your assumptions have been repeatedly disproven, you're establishing reputation for ideological blindness, and you're doing nothing else.

To claim terrorists "can't" get an ICBM flies in the face of the fact that they've been able to do things the "experts" previously said they couldn't do. YOU know they "can't" do this because of some special inside information? Hardly. History shows the enemy is adaptable and determined, and the aphorism "where there's a will, there's a way" cannot be ignored.

If I told you I was going to blow up the moon would you call 911 or would you laugh it off?

The moon has a mass of 10^22 kg, and yes, that claim would be absurd, as human technology is not capable of controlling the energy needed to disperse that mass outside it's gravitational radius. We don't even have the ability to make it change orbit a teensy bit.

Thus far all you have done is point to the fact that the US has the ability to build very small nukes. Feel free to explain why I should be worried about one going off in a major US city.

And the Mayor has pointed out that the Chinese have been handed that technology by the Clintions, and that terrorists exist.

These all seem to be facts you wish to ignore.
 
I saw what you claim was transferred by Clinton but you don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said, it was missile tech. not micro nuke tech. Clinton and Chinese Missiles

The rest of your post didn’t even warrant a response it was so stupid.

Sad thing is, I would love to stick around and watch you make a fool of yourself some more but this will be the last time, at least for 8 weeks, that I can smack you down like the dumb little biatch you pretend to be.

Stay safe, God Bless America, and be good to one another.

GPS_Flex out.
 
So you admit your earlier statement about there being no missile defense in the US is wrong then?

Nope. Your failure to read proper context isn't the Mayor's problem. The technology exists, it needs to be assembled in the proper place to do the proper job. Last time the Mayor looked, there are not ABM defenses protecting Los Angeles.

Short memory partisan hacks have. I guess you gotta have a memory issue to be a hack eh?

So, what this means is that you're incapable of arguing relevant issues and have to pretend all refutations of your incorrect statements are due to the better ideology everyone who opposes you possesses.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a stealth MRV. A basic infrared camera will pick up any MRV coming inquote]

How foolish. Gee, there's no one with any knowledge of cooling that can reduce the temperature of the ballistic missile, by pre-cooling it prior to launch, so thermal signature is weak enough, not to mention SMALL enough, that all-sky scans won't pick it up. This is a fairly simple task. Heck, almost all spacecraft launches start with an airconitioned environmetally controlled fairing so the mechanical properties of the structure aren't compromised by even a 10 degree shift from the room temperature it was assembled in.

Using a bit of liquid argon to cool the warhead to reduce it's thermal signature is simple.

It appears you do not understand what stealth is.

No, you don't. Stealthing is the process of reducing as much signature as possible in the E-M spectrum to minimize detection by the expected detection technology. The ablative shield will have an outermost coating of a radar frequency absorbent material, and the shape of the blunt re-entry face will be angled to reflect incident radar away from the source. Thermally, the thing will be cooled.

There's reasons why launch phase detection and destruction is important technology we need to perfect.

What patriots suck at is determining which target is real and which is a decoy. Even the Israeli Arrow isn't good at that.

Yup, which means, according to you, that the United States should just bend over and pull it's cheeks open wide.

What it really means is that there are areas requiring further research to improve the ABM system's effectiveness.

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.

Well, the Mayor isn't stupid enough to think that a warhead in re-entry, which means it's less than 30 seconds from it's target, can be stopped. The Mayor kind of figured you'd think that, though.

Just for some reason.

Clearly, anyone who bothered to think about the circumstances would realize the impossibility of hiding the plasma cone of the re-entrant warhead, just as everyone capable of thought realizes that anti-missile projectiles can't do anything in the time remaining.

Even lasers would have difficulty siting such a target, and the buffeting of the re-entry phase would eliminate effective targeting even if it wasn't buried in a flaming plasma trail. Not to mention that refraction effects in the heated cone, plus the density discontinuities in the shock wave, would deflect and disperse the beam.

But, those things are obvious only to persons who can think about the issue clearly.

on the contrary, I've forgotten more about it then you know...which honestly isn't much. :peace

Well, that first part is evident.

Meanwhile, MAD was and always will be a foolish policy.

The Mayor's description of MAD, as it was insanely practiced by the US and the USSR included having massive overkill capability, a determination that neither side should do anything effective to protect it's civillian populations in the way of hardened bunkers or stockpiling of supplies or, heaven forbid, attempting to intercept the enemy's first strike.

MAD worked for one reason. It wasn't put to the test. There were two players at the MAD game, and neither player saw any way in which their first strike could decapitate their enemy's nuclear response.

MAD won't work in a world where insane jihadists run countries or have access to national resources and assets, as is the perpetual risk in Pakistan and soon Iran.

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?

Absolutely. It would be our **** landing in their front yard. Only a fool is going to think there won't be third parties, significant third parties, chiming in and protesting US action. Welcome to the real world. It'll bite you in the ass if you ignore it or pretend it isn't what it really is.

Second, you think that Iran will launch a nuke knowing full well that we will turn them into glass?

So, what the Mayor said is invisible to you? Perhaps you need to change the background color to something different from your font color?

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.

So, you never heard of Code Pink....well, that lunatic bunch vanished when Obama was elected....but there's GreenPeice, which hates the US and would exert pressure to "stop the escalation, vengeance isn't the answer," and there's the left wind Sierra Club, and since Obama has shown he's not especially interested in promoting the interests of the United States, it's perfectly possible that under some Presidents the decision to respond in kind will be indefinitely delayed.

You can deny the reality of the hatred the political left has for America all you want, the fact remains that it's not assured that the President will order the retaliatory strike, and only the president can issue that order.

And Russia, Pakistan, China and India will nuke the US over Iran attacking the US FIRST? Really? That may be worth a basement mockery.

If you wish. Since the Mayor won't be seeing, have fun. Are all you liberals so blind you can't see reality?

Hence why a state wouldn't use a missile. Hence my original point. Imagine that. A missile is instantly identifiable. That invites retaliation.

Oh?

Really?

Someone launches a missile from a tramp freighter in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and abandons the ship to sink, and you think it's guaranteed to be traced to the nation of origin? Funny thing about missiles, too. The rockets are incinerated on re-entry and finding the bits is rather difficult. The bomb, of course, self-destructs.

So, it's indeed possible to delay the onset of retaliation long enough to allow normal political pressures to prevent the retaliation. All the pro-abortion baby killers in the American left would start whining about how the children in the offending country didn't do anything to be incinerated, they'll babble about how "eye for an eye" is so BC...er BCE. And international pressure will mount for restraint.

That's as certain as the muslim upbringing of our current president.
 
Not a chance. I have yet to lose a discussion about missile defense or nuclear weapons. Demon, while far more knowledgeable then Mayor (seriously) doesn't scare me.

You must be the judge of those competitions.
 
Last edited:
Actually I think we should cut MDA immediately and beef up port and border security. As long as North Korea's leadership expects to stay in power, no nuke will be used. And Iran is not crazy. Nuclear launches from states is pretty much not going to happen. What we should be worrying about is the large amount of fissile material and loose nukes out there. Couple that with our uber-crappy border control and it's a real eye opener.

That's like shutting the windows, and locking the door to keep the mosquitoes out of your backyard. It's still open to the sky.

Yeah, you missed the lecture that pointed out that the terrorists attack our weaknesses, not our strengths.
 
I saw what you claim was transferred by Clinton but you don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said, it was missile tech. not micro nuke tech. Clinton and Chinese Missiles

The rest of your post didn’t even warrant a response it was so stupid.

Sad thing is, I would love to stick around and watch you make a fool of yourself some more but this will be the last time, at least for 8 weeks, that I can smack you down like the dumb little biatch you pretend to be.

Stay safe, God Bless America, and be good to one another.

GPS_Flex out.

Yes, and the Mayor wasn't discussing Clinton's deal with Bernie Schartz to sell MIRV technology to China, but the theft under Clinton's adminstration of W88 technology for American labs by Chinese spies.

The Mayor is aware that it was fairly pointless for China to be engaged in espionage when Clinton was giving them store openly, but still, China took W88 technology from Clinton. For whatever reason you want to pretend the Wen Ho Lee incident didn't happen, it did.

That the details were never fully resolved is what happens when the White House is busy playing politica coverup instead of defending the nation. No administation in the history of the nation was more corrupt than Clintion's, and since his self-interest was better served by obscuring the events than in uncovering them, it's not surprising the full details can't be determined.

Nevertheless, the Chinese gained access to our W88 technology under Clinton.

Want the Mayor to say it again, or are you going to ignore it anyway and continue to pretend the Mayor is discussing launch vehicles?
 
Let me start with the less obvious. You probably aren’t aware that anything enriched to weapons grade material is easily detected by satellite unless it is encased in massive amounts of extremely dense material. Trust me on this one.

Somehow that doesn't make sense to me. By that reasoning, we should be able to track all nuclear weapons across the planet. Basically ever Typhoon II is trackable by satellite. Not to mention that highly enriched material for research in small quantities is traceable. That just doesn't sound right.

If Japan gets nuked by China, it would be a crushing economic blow to the USA and it would require a massive nuclear salvo in response due to our treaty obligations. Same goes for Taiwan and South Korea. Why not field a defensive shield that will detour such an attack rather than absorb it and escalate the carnage with a response that would be absolutely required?

Why on earth would China do such a thing? If we base our spending on what may occur rather then what is likely, we'd go broke in months. Besides, Japan has been under the Umbrella for decades. What compelling reason is there to spend hundreds of billions on a defense that likely will never see an attack?

It is also important to note that the US naval fleet needs to defend itself from missile attacks, nuclear or other, as well. Can you justify not defending an entire US carrier group against missile strikes?

ICBM defense doesn't stop supersonic nuclear tipped sea skimmers. Those are two entirely different threats. Besides, that threat has been around since the late 80s. Russian Granit anti-shipping missiles aren't anything new. What amuses me is that the press is going ga-ga over China's new anti-Carrier missile while ignoring that Russia's had it for two decades.

Again, you show your ignorance. The threat we face from missiles is the destruction they carry, whether they are armed with a nuke or not.

You appear to be unaware of the people actually trying to kill us. Will Osama use a missile? No. Are there countries out there with missiles capable of doing real damage with potential payloads? Absolutely. Are they likely to actually use them? Not at all. This is basic cost verse benefit. I see no reason to spend hundreds of billions on a defense that will never see use and forgo spending on defenses that we actually need now. I never argued that there aren't missile threats. I just argued that the likelihood of them actually being carried out is low. Compared to the threat of Islamic terrorism who won't use a missile.

Just because you can dream up countless other threat scenarios doesn’t reduce the threat that missiles pose to our bases around the world, our fleets across the oceans or our cities here in the USA.

By that measure we should spend trillions to defend against all potential threats, even if they are exceedingly unlikely. How is that a reasonable position?

If you hack my responses into little out of context pieces, I’ll show you no respect in the future. My paragraphs are small enough to quote so don't be a hack.

Come again? Specifically citing what you are replying to prevents long drag on posts.
 
A strong defensive deterrent is much cheaper than just waiting to be forced to go on the offensive.

By such a measure, we don't need missile defense as our nuclear 2nd strike not to mention overwhelming conventional is a sufficent deterrence to an actual missile strike.

Do you know why many countries are against the US leading the zero nuke policy? Because they got nothing to counter our conventional hegemony once that occurs.
 
Nope. Your failure to read proper context isn't the Mayor's problem.

Come again? You claim it doesn't exist and then within the same post claim it does exist. Real problems going on between the lobes of your brain.

The technology exists, it needs to be assembled in the proper place to do the proper job. Last time the Mayor looked, there are not ABM defenses protecting Los Angeles.

By that reasoning, it doesn't exist at all. Despite the test this week. Clearly you inhabit a world of your own where if it doesn't protect you at this very second, it doesn't exist. :shock:

So, what this means is that you're incapable of arguing relevant issues and have to pretend all refutations of your incorrect statements are due to the better ideology everyone who opposes you possesses.

Care to show me one of those? Are you are just as much of a liar as turtle?

How foolish. Gee, there's no one with any knowledge of cooling that can reduce the temperature of the ballistic missile, by pre-cooling it prior to launch, so thermal signature is weak enough, not to mention SMALL enough, that all-sky scans won't pick it up.

That is the most hilarious piece of bull**** I have ever heard. GPS was right to call you a fool. You just argued that a missile going several times the speed of sound through a fairly dense atmosphere, releasing multiple MRVs which then come down through the atmosphere will generate less infrared signature then a bird. That such cooling can reduce the heat generated by such friction to less than the body temperature of a duck, which by the way we can track with infrared. Thanks for more basement fodder. I can't make **** this stupid up.

This is a fairly simple task. Heck, almost all spacecraft launches start with an airconitioned environmetally controlled fairing so the mechanical properties of the structure aren't compromised by even a 10 degree shift from the room temperature it was assembled in.

Except that upon launch the temperature increases rapidly. Go look up NASA's infrared pictures of shuttle launches. Man you are ignorant.

Using a bit of liquid argon to cool the warhead to reduce it's thermal signature is simple.

Not enough to hide its thermal signature. Besides, to actually truly mask it from infrared, you need to perfectly match the ambient temperature. Seriously, I know you are making **** up. And GPS knows it too.

No, you don't. Stealthing is the process of reducing as much signature as possible in the E-M spectrum to minimize detection by the expected detection technology. The ablative shield will have an outermost coating of a radar frequency absorbent material, and the shape of the blunt re-entry face will be angled to reflect incident radar away from the source. Thermally, the thing will be cooled.

And you still think that the warhead going several times the speed of sound will have no different temperature from the ambient air. Yes, you have no idea what the hell stealth actually is.

Yup, which means, according to you, that the United States should just bend over and pull it's cheeks open wide.

No, if you weren't a compulsive liar like Turtledude, you would recognize we should spend our money on actual threats.

What it really means is that there are areas requiring further research to improve the ABM system's effectiveness.

It's amazing just how much of a hypocrite you are. It's okay to have industrial welfare, but spending on education?! EVIL.

Well, the Mayor isn't stupid enough to think that a warhead in re-entry, which means it's less than 30 seconds from it's target, can be stopped. The Mayor kind of figured you'd think that, though.

And that actually addressed my point how? Oh wait. It didn't.

But, those things are obvious only to persons who can think about the issue clearly.

So you actually do use Google from time to time. Congratulation. You still have failed to actually address my argument (as usual).

Well, that first part is evident.

Indeed, hence why you are becoming the butt of jokes around here.

MAD worked for one reason. It wasn't put to the test. There were two players at the MAD game, and neither player saw any way in which their first strike could decapitate their enemy's nuclear response.

More right-left lobe misfiring? You claim it was never tested and then point of a period of time where it was tested. Methinks you need to see a neurologist.

MAD won't work in a world where insane jihadists run countries or have access to national resources and assets, as is the perpetual risk in Pakistan and soon Iran.

I see you are ignoring my example proving you wrong eh? Typical hack.

By the way, cherry picking my post doesn't mean I forgot what I argued.

I see, you like the rest of the cowards, ran away from pointing out an example where the Mullahs actually acted irrational. Typical hack.

Absolutely. It would be our **** landing in their front yard. Only a fool is going to think there won't be third parties, significant third parties, chiming in and protesting US action. Welcome to the real world. It'll bite you in the ass if you ignore it or pretend it isn't what it really is.

Since when did protesting = nuking America? You change your argument so much it's hard to keep track of what you originally argued. Typical hack.

You do realize you are arguing that they would defend a nuclear aggressor? WOW. That's a new level of crazy.

So, what the Mayor said is invisible to you? Perhaps you need to change the background color to something different from your font color?

So my challenge to you for showing a single example where the Mullahs risked their power is invisible to you? Perhaps you need to change the background color to something different from your font color? Coward.

nd only the president can issue that order.

Nothing which proves you get your facts from crazy land.

Still nothing to support the truly asinine (even for this place) argument that Russia would nuke the US for defending itself. Man I'm going to have fun with that argument.

If you wish. Since the Mayor won't be seeing, have fun. Are all you liberals so blind you can't see reality?

How is it reality that Russia will defend a nuclear aggressor?

Someone launches a missile from a tramp freighter in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and abandons the ship to sink, and you think it's guaranteed to be traced to the nation of origin?

The impurity residue will do it. oh wait. You ignored that part of my earlier post because you can't address it, much like the rest of my post. Pathetic.

Funny thing about missiles, too. The rockets are incinerated on re-entry and finding the bits is rather difficult. The bomb, of course, self-destructs.

Since when did satellite photos of missiles disappear when the missile is used? Oh wait. They don't. That's just inconvenient for you so you ignored that in my post. Pathetic.

Seriously. Do you anything of substance or shall I join GPS in laughing at you?
 
That's like shutting the windows, and locking the door to keep the mosquitoes out of your backyard. It's still open to the sky.

Yeah, you missed the lecture that pointed out that the terrorists attack our weaknesses, not our strengths.

Did you really post that? I pointed out how a missile is not the way terrorists will nuke us and then you say that. Someone should run a IP check on you to see if you're actually Turtledude's sock puppet and get you both banned. basically you criticized me for saying your own argument. Terrorists will attack our weakness, not our strenghts was my point and you insult me over that. You say the SAME **** and you call me stupid. Really.
 
Moderator's Warning:
OC... cease with the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom