Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 123

Thread: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

  1. #81
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    No matter what the economic circumstances the USA cannot afford to lose the ability to defend itself.
    Personally I believe whats happening throughout the middle east will not turn out good for us in the end, we need the ability to defend ourself at the drop of a hat. That does not translate into im for invading or attacking other countries I am not. I am not for nation building and I would like very much for us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan save our kids and our cash.
    We already spend a buck ton of money. When is enough is enough? We already have a missile defense system against these kind of attacks. Were not arguing that we should just stop spending money in the defense sector because that is just dumb, we are arguing we should cut back (in my opinion a good amount), but this is just another waste ofmoney.


  2. #82
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's much less likely than nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, because even during periods of instability those with access to nukes are more inclined to preserve their position than to randomly attack us for no reason. Furthermore, even in states with weak safeguards, a Dr. Strangelove scenario is unlikely. Launching a nuke on a missile (especially in a country that is relatively new to them) requires coordinating the actions of many people.



    I'm not saying that there will never be a nuclear conflict between nation-states. The probability of one occurring between India and Pakistan is frighteningly high, for example. But no nation threatens the United States with nukes. Could that change in 20 years? I suppose. But it's far less likely than terrorists getting ahold of a nuke. While international wars are not quite obsolete yet, they are rapidly being replaced by wars between nation-states and smaller groups of militants.



    Again, we can't have everything we want. There isn't enough money to guard against every possible threat, so we need to focus our resources where they are most effective.



    OK, so we might not wipe out their capital city with nukes. But all of that infrastructure you just mentioned would be, major government sites located in cities would undoubtedly be bombed by conventional means, and one way or another the offending regime would be deposed.



    There is no nation on earth that has the capability of launching a nuclear first strike so devastating that it would in any way hinder the United States' ability to destroy anything and everything it wanted. Not even Russia.



    I think this is where I'm gonna bow out of the thread. Your last paragraph perfectly illustrates the fact that this is a topic that people become emotional about, instead of employing a level-headed analysis of the costs relative to the actual risk we face.

    So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread make an argument along the lines of "Missile defense is more cost-effective at preventing casualties than increasing our port security or improving our intelligence-gathering" which is the kind of rational, calculating response I was hoping to respond to. Since I don't see any indication that that's going to change, I think I'm gonna call it quits in this thread.
    I am getting emotional because you are in complete denial and I do no think you actually even remotely consider how serious the consequences will be of not having such defenses if you are wrong. You also espouse ideas that are more indicative of brainwashing because you seem to think that terrorists are the big danger. Were you in any way informed on these matters you would know the risk of any terrorist group being able to smuggle something like a nuke into this country and using it is minimal. It makes for a nice Tom Clancy novel but not for a very realistic scenario. Also, even allowing the slim chance of one nuke being able to get smuggled into the United States the damage would be nothing compared to a nuclear exchange with a major power.

    Say as much as you like that great power conflicts are a thing of the past. You come off like one of those naive naysayers before World War I who insisted on the same exact thing.

    Hell, how about we just talk about the fact that countries are building more precise ballistic missiles for conventional warfare? That alone would justify building these missile defenses. While it certainly would be a good idea to invest more in port security I think people's priorities are out of whack when they insist that purely defensive systems should be cut first.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  3. #83
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    We already spend a buck ton of money. When is enough is enough? We already have a missile defense system against these kind of attacks. Were not arguing that we should just stop spending money in the defense sector because that is just dumb, we are arguing we should cut back (in my opinion a good amount), but this is just another waste ofmoney.
    We already have a missile defense system? We aren’t arguing that cuts in other areas of defense spending should be made before this one is cut?

    Did I miss something?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #84
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I am getting emotional because you are in complete denial and I do no think you actually even remotely consider how serious the consequences will be of not having such defenses if you are wrong. You also espouse ideas that are more indicative of brainwashing because you seem to think that terrorists are the big danger. Were you in any way informed on these matters you would know the risk of any terrorist group being able to smuggle something like a nuke into this country and using it is minimal. It makes for a nice Tom Clancy novel but not for a very realistic scenario. Also, even allowing the slim chance of one nuke being able to get smuggled into the United States the damage would be nothing compared to a nuclear exchange with a major power.

    Say as much as you like that great power conflicts are a thing of the past. You come off like one of those naive naysayers before World War I who insisted on the same exact thing.

    Hell, how about we just talk about the fact that countries are building more precise ballistic missiles for conventional warfare? That alone would justify building these missile defenses. While it certainly would be a good idea to invest more in port security I think people's priorities are out of whack when they insist that purely defensive systems should be cut first.
    You must take much of what he says with a grain of salt. He doesn't have a clue when it comes to how big a nuclear warhead is and how difficult it would be to smuggle a nuke just a fraction of its size into the US because, as you pointed out, he is thinking more along the lines of a Tom Clancy novel than real life logistics.

    The “briefcase nuke” is a joke because it would need to weigh nearly 100 lbs in protective outer materials just to prevent the carrier from dying within an hour and the blast from such a device would cause minimal damage compared to a missile that detonates before impact. I could go on about the ability the US has to remotely sense the energy emitted by any nuclear device that might be powerful enough to cause significant damage upon detonation but our socialist friend obviously isn’t as concerned with real threats as he is the socialist party talking points.

    The socialist party opposes anything that is good for America so he opposes anything that is good for America.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  5. #85
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Let's see....the US has no missile defenses.
    Really? So the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on missile defense doesn't exist? Furthermore, have you heard of the weapon system called the Patriot Missile Battery and it's various upgrades? I guess being a hack in one view means you reject educating yourself in all views.

    Therefore ANY ICBM launch will deliver it's payload on target, assuming the offending nation has properly invested in reliability testing of it's weapons systems, as it should have.
    And they will be retaliated with massive overkill. MAD works on basically every state. Even Iran. Who's managed to keep a cold war with Saudi Arabia from going hot despite having sufficient chemical weapons to wipe out most of the population. To invest the necessary resources to have a viable, effective and reliable ICBM is at minimum a billion dollars. It makes far more sense to spend half that and smuggle a dozen weapons and use them by panel van and bypass all of the expensive outlays. Not to mention you can hide most of your weapons program that way as well. The problem with neocons like you is that you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes to see how they would think. It's a reason why Iraq went so poorly for years. Why bother with spending a billion for a single ICBM when you can get a dozen smuggled in for less than half without any risk of missile defense?

    That's clearly less reliable that smuggling a bomb into the US using commercial carriers subject to inspection and interdiction.
    Considering how badly we inspect for radioactive material, it's one reason I think God exists. In 10 years we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggle weapon. Divine intervention.

    Have any of you people ever tried to understand why the United States has invested literaly trillions of dollars in it's SSBN system?
    Probably more then you. Have you ever wondered about the rumors of orbital insertions of nuclear weapons? That's better then SSBN second strike.

    That's because, to make it plain, any missile currently launched against the American fixed position assets are guaranteed to successfully strike what they're aimed at. Thus if Moscow or China launches againt our fixed ICBM sites in the US, those assets must launch on detection, or they're gone. BUT, it's not possible to launch against our SSBN forces with any guarantee of success.

    Reagan's MX missile plan was a cheaper alternative to the SSBN, but that was killed because of limp dicks citing "destabilization". Total silliness. Shifting defense assets on the nation's rail system, or dedicating new rail systems to shuffle them about wouldn't cost anythin like the $200 billion dollars a Trident submarine cost, and would have had no noticeable impact on the strategic balance.
    Did you really say that? You want to shuffle nuclear weapons on RAIL? Rail that's open to spying? Rail that has accidents? Rail that can be sabotaged? That's almost as bad of a system as the Soviet method of transporting their nukes. We could have hit every single Soviet mobile launch pad after figuring out their design. SSBNs are far more of a preferable survivable alternative.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #86
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Why bother with spending a billion for a single ICBM when you can get a dozen smuggled in for less than half without any risk of missile defense?
    Because it won’t work?

    Come on, you watch too many hollywierd movies if you believe this crap. Like the USSR was too stupid to figure that out but you, sitting in front of your computer surfing the web, just figured out that a nuke in a panel van is a better and cheaper weapon than an ICBM.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  7. #87
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    You must take much of what he says with a grain of salt. He doesn't have a clue when it comes to how big a nuclear warhead is and how difficult it would be to smuggle a nuke just a fraction of its size into the US because, as you pointed out, he is thinking more along the lines of a Tom Clancy novel than real life logistics.

    The “briefcase nuke” is a joke because it would need to weigh nearly 100 lbs in protective outer materials just to prevent the carrier from dying within an hour and the blast from such a device would cause minimal damage compared to a missile that detonates before impact. I could go on about the ability the US has to remotely sense the energy emitted by any nuclear device that might be powerful enough to cause significant damage upon detonation but our socialist friend obviously isn’t as concerned with real threats as he is the socialist party talking points.

    The socialist party opposes anything that is good for America so he opposes anything that is good for America.
    I will say that there are nuclear weapons one could fit in a suitcase or otherwise carry inside a bag inconspicuously without those issues you mentioned. Their yields are much lower however. Still, such weapons could cause a great deal of destruction in a major city.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #88
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Because it won’t work?
    What makes you think that? Furthermore, why are we spending huge amounts to beef up radioactivity searches at ports? Since it won't work.

    Come on, you watch too many hollywierd movies if you believe this crap. Like the USSR was too stupid to figure that out but you, sitting in front of your computer surfing the web, just figured out that a nuke in a panel van is a better and cheaper weapon than an ICBM.
    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.

    In that aspect, Missile defense is stupid as the threat we face from nukes won't come via missile.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #89
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I will say that there are nuclear weapons one could fit in a suitcase or otherwise carry inside a bag inconspicuously without those issues you mentioned. Their yields are much lower however. Still, such weapons could cause a great deal of destruction in a major city.
    Backpack nukes are largely a myth and not relevant in this context. One could ship the parts in separately in containers and reassemble in one of the millions of warehouses across the US. Or even better just line a container ship with lead, put a nuke in there and time it to go off when the ship pulls into the harbor. Don't even need to get past continental US inspection. It's pretty amazing how the US hasn't gotten nuked yet.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #90
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Backpack nukes are largely a myth and not relevant in this context. One could ship the parts in separately in containers and reassemble in one of the millions of warehouses across the US.
    Sure, you just need some people proficient enough to safely disassemble and reassemble a nuclear warhead. Hell, those types of people practically fall from the sky in the backwater slums of Central Asia.

    Or even better just line a container ship with lead, put a nuke in there and time it to go off when the ship pulls into the harbor. Don't even need to get past continental US inspection. It's pretty amazing how the US hasn't gotten nuked yet.
    It isn't that amazing at all. For one, a person actually has to get the nuke by passing through all the military security surrounding any nuclear facility and leaving unnoticed with something at least the size of a washing machine and heavy as two average-sized men (I doubt jumping the gate is an option). Then you have to get it out of the host country before anyone realizes what has happened and can prevent you from leaving. You also need someone capable of rigging the nuke to detonate under such conditions. Basically, what you are talking about is plausible for a state actor that possesses nukes since it would only have to worry about getting it to the target from the nearest port.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •