• 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

Why do you think the chance of "an upstart nation with new toys being willing to attack" the US is good? Because you saw a really supercool movie about it? :roll:


Because every student of military tactics knows that it's necessary to account for every potential threat, and the potential for a nuclear attack on the United States is much greater then zero.

It's also necessary to assess our possible responses.

North Korea launches a shipboard based Tae Po Dong nuke to Los Angeles. It hits Anaheim, wiping out Mickey Mouse.

Will the US respond by nuking Pyongyang? Is China going to sit still for that? What are the ramifications? North Korea could easily feel protected by China and launch on a madman's whim.

If Terhan nukes New York, will Russia sit quietly by to eat the radioactive fallout from our response? Perhaps it would be politically inexpedient to respond in kind. Certain presidents, like the last four, value the opinion of the UN over their own constituents. Obama's second term won't be run seeking votes for Obama, it's very easy to imagine he'd refuse to nuke a muslim nation for an attack on the US.

It's orders of magnitude better to stop the missile in mid-air and embarass the crap out of the attacker than to contemplate the possible responses, especially considering the large faction of traitors in the US who opposed any military response to the 9-11 attacks.
 
Where is a ragtag group of terrorists going to get an ICBM, much less the capability and knowhow to actually target it and fire it?

Where did a ragtag band of terrorists come up with FOUR (4!) 757's to play with one summer morning?

They stole them.

Where did they get the funding to perform their show? Why, from a national government.

Fancy that.

Are you so damned ignorant of recent history you can make such idiotic claims? Let alone the history of the duplicities of the preceding ten thousand years of human existence?

Yes. Allah telegrammed me. Exactly correct.
Aaaaaand another moron goes on my ignore list.

That's one way to protect yourself from uncomfortable truths.
 
Oh I can already tell that you're going to be a mental giant. :roll:
Arguing that we should do X, Y, and Z strictly because the government says so is ****ing retarded.



We need to do a cost/benefit analysis of these sort of things. The risk of another nation attacking us with ICBMs (and that the system successfully shoots them down) is exceedingly low. The risk of a terrorist group attacking us with nuclear weapons is much, much higher. A missile defense system is an extraordinary waste of money relative to the actual risk that we face from a nation-state firing missiles at us.

But I suppose that as long as there are people like you who are willing to shriek loudly about any threat, however remote, the possibilities of the government actually conducting (and using) a risk analysis are slim to none.

Yeah, I am a lot smarter than you but don’t let that stop you from entertaining me with posts that point out how inept our government can be. I love it when liberals dwell on government incompetency.

By the way, if you were smarter than me, you would know that it is a cost/risk analysis we should be looking at, but I digress. Perhaps you really did mean “cost/benefit” analysis which is a great place to start.

What value would you put on Los Angeles? If Dr. Evil had a nuke and threatened to destroy Los Angeles unless we sent him some money, at what point would you consider the price too high to pay and accept the fact that a major American city will become a nuclear hazard zone?

As for the risk, all you need to ask yourself is whether it is physically possible for someone to launch a nuclear armed missile at a major US city. Obviously the answer is 100% yes it is physically possible.

The next question you need to ask is whether anyone would want to destroy an American city with a nuke. Again, the answer is 100% yes.

I’ll leave it there for now because I don’t want to move too fast for you.
 
As for the risk, all you need to ask yourself is whether it is physically possible for someone to launch a nuclear armed missile at a major US city. Obviously the answer is 100% yes it is physically possible.

The next question you need to ask is whether anyone would want to destroy an American city with a nuke. Again, the answer is 100% yes.

The issue here is the nuclear threat. The vehicle of delivery is only relevant inasmuch as it guides our preparations to prevent it from happening. It is far more likely to be delivered by terrorists in a semi, than by a foreign government on an ICBM. It is also far easier and cheaper to substantially reduce the risk of that threat. Our military and/or homeland security does not and never will have the resources to provide 100% protection against every possible threat, so we must focus our resources on those areas where we are likely to save the most lives for the least cost. And that certainly is not a missile defense system.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what rock you live on but you are about to pick a fight you can’t win.

I wasn’t talking about the government passing military grade secretes to China, I was talking about corporations passing military secrets for profit. You need to back up and check the dialogue or I’m going to open a can of humiliation on you my friend.

Hello?

You're thinking maybe MIRV technology wasn't a military secret? If it was open source technology, then explain why the Chinese didn't already have it? They've been engaged in a decades long program of industrial espionage. Also, Loral did it for commercial advantage and it had the added benefit of political cronyism, too.

There's a reason why the Chinese Long March II rocket was called, Before Loral, the Long Shot II. All of us working in the space industry are aware of what Loral did.
 
The issue here is the nuclear threat. The vehicle of delivery is only relevant inasmuch as it guides our preparations to prevent it from happening. It is far more likely to be delivered by terrorists in a semi, than by a foreign government on an ICBM. It is also far easier and cheaper to substantially reduce the risk of that threat. Our military and/or homeland security does not and never will have the resources to provide 100% protection against every possible threat, so we must focus our resources on those areas where we are likely to save the most lives for the least cost. And that certainly is not a missile defense system.

I’m not sure what your logic is here but let me ask you a simple question. Hopefully you have enough integrity to answer it rather that play games and avoid it.


If the US could develop a system that could/would detect and neutralize a truck, ship, car, briefcase or any other device that might cause a nuclear explosion in the USA, would you support efforts to develop the ability to neutralize such threats?
 
The issue here is the nuclear threat. The vehicle of delivery is only relevant inasmuch as it guides our preparations to prevent it from happening. It is far more likely to be delivered by terrorists in a semi, than by a foreign government on an ICBM. It is also far easier and cheaper to substantially reduce the risk of that threat. Our military and/or homeland security does not and never will have the resources to provide 100% protection against every possible threat, so we must focus our resources on those areas where we are likely to save the most lives for the least cost. And that certainly is not a missile defense system.

Yeah, you can ignore the fact that delivery mode is the enemy's choice.

The enemy isn't going to ignore it.

It may be cheaper and easier to nuke Long Beach via containership, but if the US had agents personally inspecting all containers in their ports of origin and literally escorting each one to it's destination, then the enemy would choose to hire or steal a civillian cigarette boat to deliver the weapon from an off shore transfer, or ...

...

ooo...maybe it's practical to launch the thing on a missile. After all, close does count when playing atom bombs.
 
I’m not sure what your logic is here but let me ask you a simple question. Hopefully you have enough integrity to answer it rather that play games and avoid it.


If the US could develop a system that could/would detect and neutralize a truck, ship, car, briefcase or any other device that might cause a nuclear explosion in the USA, would you support efforts to develop the ability to neutralize such threats?

Sure, assuming that there weren't other ways of neutralizing threats that were even MORE cost effective, relative to the risk and the consequences. Guarding against nuclear terrorism would certainly be a step up from a missile defense shield.
 
Last edited:
Sure, assuming that there weren't other ways of neutralizing threats that were even MORE cost effective, relative to the risk and the consequences. Guarding against nuclear terrorism would certainly be a step up from a missile defense shield.

Unless the incoming threat was incoming at Mach 15 from 800 miles away....
 
Hello?

You're thinking maybe MIRV technology wasn't a military secret? If it was open source technology, then explain why the Chinese didn't already have it? They've been engaged in a decades long program of industrial espionage. Also, Loral did it for commercial advantage and it had the added benefit of political cronyism, too.

There's a reason why the Chinese Long March II rocket was called, Before Loral, the Long Shot II. All of us working in the space industry are aware of what Loral did.

Dude, you need to go read the post history on this thread because you look like a fool right now.

Your desire for bigger government and less freedom won’t prevent the transfer of technology if the government decides to trade it to a foreign nation and it won’t stop the threat of spies who infiltrate American businesses.

If you stopped hating on America a little more you would see that the corporations that build American weapons didn’t sell MIRV technology to China simply because they are capitalists and you would realize that you look like a real fool right now because you just took sides with an anti American socialist who thinks capitalism is evil.

Are you an anti capitalist? You sound like a friggen commie who hates America. Get a clue dude.
 
They won't have to steal it. Corporations are loyal to the strong currency and the renminbi is really comin' on. Corporations are in business to make money and if the Chinese offer the top dollar, they will own the technology. That is the American Corporate way. They don't live and breathe and I don't notice anything about patriotism in an accounting ledger. The sad facts!

American corporations that work in the American defense sector aren’t about to sell America out to the highest bidder. You have some serious issues if you think otherwise.

That's utter bull****. Loral Corp under umm.. Bernie Schwartz gave China MIRV technology simply to close the deal on a single satellite launch, and the Clinton administations Department of Commerce, in exchange for campaign cash to the DNC, gave it the go ahead.

Hello?

You're thinking maybe MIRV technology wasn't a military secret? If it was open source technology, then explain why the Chinese didn't already have it? They've been engaged in a decades long program of industrial espionage. Also, Loral did it for commercial advantage and it had the added benefit of political cronyism, too.

There's a reason why the Chinese Long March II rocket was called, Before Loral, the Long Shot II. All of us working in the space industry are aware of what Loral did.

Unless they can get a technology export waiver from the Clinton administration... The separation system technology Loral handed to China was ITAR protected.

Your claim that capitalism and American corporate greed is so evil that even American Defense Contractors will simply sell military secrets to anyone that is willing to pay for them is laughable and you can’t be taken seriously Mayor Snorkum.

Yes there have been leaks in the past but American Defense Contractors don’t just sell top secret info to anyone who is willing to pay for it as you would have us believe. We are more American than that.
 
Last edited:
Your claim that capitalism and American corporate greed is so evil that even American Defense Contractors will simply sell military secrets to anyone that is willing to pay for them is laughable and you can’t be taken seriously Mayor Snorkum.

Yes there have been leaks in the past but American Defense Contractors don’t just sell top secret info to anyone who is willing to pay for it as you would have us believe. We are more American than that.

We all miss the main point here.. The US military offense/defense budget of $700 billion is an example of an industry that needs regular wars to survive. Lots of money in war and if you don't have one, start one. After all, ol Sammy over there is looking like, maybe, could be gonna, almost, possibly readying to throw a dog turd at you. Smite 'em. Smote 'em. Talk bad about him and buy bigger, more expensive weapons. Warring Nations are not the good guys! The USA has historically made money on WARS. Time for change. The people have been snookered. Throw some peace at them. Get your ears bobbed.
 
We already have missile defense from nuclear attacks...
 
Missile defense systems are the most idiotic waste of taxpayer money imaginable. These kind of programs should be the first thing on the chopping block when we're looking at budget cuts. The threat from nuclear weapons doesn't come from nation-states with ICBMs, it comes from terrorists smuggling them into New York Harbor.

For heaven's sake, the chances of a terrorist group sneaking a nuke into the United States is minimal compared to the very real and ever-present risk of nuclear missiles being fired. Saying that it would never happen is just naive. For one, even if you argued that the current governments would not attack us that is no assurance that a future government or some faction would not. I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to gamble on the good faith of other countries with millions of American lives.

I really find it incredible that so many people are so adamantly opposed to purely defensive weapon systems like this. The reality is no sane leader in the United States is going to think of a missile defense system as safely allowing for aggression against a nuclear power. No other sane leader in the world is going to take the building of a missile defense system as a threat of war. They will look at ways to counter such defenses, but that is the limit of what they would do.
 
For heaven's sake, the chances of a terrorist group sneaking a nuke into the United States is minimal compared to the very real and ever-present risk of nuclear missiles being fired.

Sorry, that's just not the case. Nuclear proliferation to terrorist groups is a very real threat, and is growing larger each year. There are at least two unstable regimes (North Korea and Pakistan) that already have nukes, and another one (Iran) that is actively pursuing them. It's not difficult to envision a situation where one or more of these regimes starts to fall apart and there are loose nukes floating around.

Demon of Light said:
Saying that it would never happen is just naive. For one, even if you argued that the current governments would not attack us that is no assurance that a future government or some faction would not.

There's no assurance that they would not, but they are much less motivated to do so than terrorist groups. Compare the cost/benefit analysis of a nation-state launching a nuke, versus a terrorist group doing the same. If a nation-state launched nukes at us, they'd be wiped off the map. If a terrorist group with a nuke in a truck detonated it, it would be very difficult for the US to respond in kind (since there probably wouldn't be an obvious target), and terrorists would be much less likely to care about staying alive or preserving their country anyway.

Demon of Light said:
I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to gamble on the good faith of other countries with millions of American lives.

We can't have everything we want. There just isn't enough money available. Therefore our defense dollars should prioritize things that will do the most to protect people for the least cost, which is definitely not missile defense.

Demon of Light said:
I really find it incredible that so many people are so adamantly opposed to purely defensive weapon systems like this. The reality is no sane leader in the United States is going to think of a missile defense system as safely allowing for aggression against a nuclear power. No other sane leader in the world is going to take the building of a missile defense system as a threat of war. They will look at ways to counter such defenses, but that is the limit of what they would do.

This is irrelevant to the fact that it's an expensive boondoggle that does very little to protect American security, when there are plenty of more important things that we could be doing but aren't, because we lack the funding.
 
Last edited:
ICBM's require serious infrastructure that is only available to nation states. The threat of nuclear retaliation is highly effective at keeping nation states in line. Meanwhile, the U.S. has border security that is a bad joke. We can't even prevent millions of poor people from wandering across the border, much less organized groups like drug smugglers or terrorists. It is foolish to spend money on a missile shield when you literally can't even keep the front door closed. Budgets are a zero sum game and money needs to spent in areas where it actually has a useful impact.
 
ICBM's require serious infrastructure that is only available to nation states. The threat of nuclear retaliation is highly effective at keeping nation states in line. Meanwhile, the U.S. has border security that is a bad joke. We can't even prevent millions of poor people from wandering across the border, much less organized groups like drug smugglers or terrorists. It is foolish to spend money on a missile shield when you literally can't even keep the front door closed. Budgets are a zero sum game and money needs to spent in areas where it actually has a useful impact.

If we stopped the wars, stopped the nation building and bribes in the Middle East and brought our troops home, we would save plenty of money, enough to fund this defensive program and other defensive programs like border security.

Surely we can cut enough of the offensive programs to pay for defensive programs. How can anyone oppose defensive programs unless they aren’t Americans?
 
If we stopped the wars, stopped the nation building and bribes in the Middle East and brought our troops home, we would save plenty of money, enough to fund this defensive program and other defensive programs like border security.

Surely we can cut enough of the offensive programs to pay for defensive programs. How can anyone oppose defensive programs unless they aren’t Americans?

My plan is to build a series of stone castles along the Canadian border. Do you support my defensive plan or are you not an American?
 
My plan is to build a series of stone castles along the Canadian border. Do you support my defensive plan or are you not an American?

Sounds like a plan. Draw up a budget and start the research.
 
Sounds like a plan. Draw up a budget and start the research.

I'll give you credit for idelogical consistency, at the cost of rational budgetting. I'll need 3000 serf laborers, 200 stone masons, 4000 tons of stone, 6000 kegs of ale and a battalion of whores to get the job done.
 
Sorry, that's just not the case. Nuclear proliferation to terrorist groups is a very real threat, and is growing larger each year. There are at least two unstable regimes (North Korea and Pakistan) that already have nukes, and another one (Iran) that is actively pursuing them. It's not difficult to envision a situation where one or more of these regimes starts to fall apart and there are loose nukes floating around.

It is also not hard to envision a situation where some group within those regimes during such instability fires off a missile. As of yet only with North Korea would this be a direct threat to the United States, but in a decade or two it will likely be a very real threat with all of them. Of course, you should not discount the potential for violent instability in other nuclear powers with ICBMs that could lead to missiles being fired. However, your position is ultimately rooted in the naive notion that there will never be a great power conflict ever again in the history of the world, which is just plain stupid and reckless to assume. For ****'s sake even if we assumed all your absurd notions had validity to them it does nothing to prevent a mistake by a foreign military and in such a situation it would be better if the mistake was dealt with through surface-to-air missile intercepts than nuclear retaliation.

There's no assurance that they would not, but they are much less motivated to do so than terrorist groups. Compare the cost/benefit analysis of a nation-state launching a nuke, versus a terrorist group doing the same. If a nation-state launched nukes at us, they'd be wiped off the map. If a terrorist group with a nuke in a truck detonated it, it would be very difficult for the US to respond in kind (since there probably wouldn't be an obvious target), and terrorists would be much less likely to care about staying alive or preserving their country anyway.

Except they wouldn't be wiped off the map and anyone with any understanding of the situation would know this. A government is liable to have any unconcealed nuclear infrastructure and military facilities destroyed by nuclear means, but that just gives the party launching the weapons all the more incentive to make sure their first blow is as devastating and destructive as possible so as to minimize the damage of the counter-strike, or diminish the likelihood altogether. Nuclear war is not some act of reciprocal genocide.

We can't have everything we want. There just isn't enough money available. Therefore our defense dollars should prioritize things that will do the most to protect people for the least cost, which is definitely not missile defense.

Really? Do you have any ****ing clue what the costs would be if you are wrong about your naive little notions regarding the potential for nuclear war? Are you willing to bet your own life on it? You don't even allow the possibility that you might be wrong at the expense of potentially millions of innocent lives.
 
I'll give you credit for idelogical consistency, at the cost of rational budgetting. I'll need 3000 serf laborers, 200 stone masons, 4000 tons of stone, 6000 kegs of ale and a battalion of whores to get the job done.

Yeah but in all honesty I don’t see any reason why we can’t stop the wars, cut back on some of the offensive weaponry and use some of the money saved for budget cuts and some of it for defensive measures like border security, new technology for inspecting incoming shipments and missile defense etc.

What if I proposed that we tell the military that it can’t buy any bullets, bombs or cruise missiles for a year so that we can use the money saved on defensive programs. That ought to make the anti-war crowd happy shouldn’t it?
 
It is also not hard to envision a situation where some group within those regimes during such instability fires off a missile.

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.

Demon of Light said:
As of yet only with North Korea would this be a direct threat to the United States, but in a decade or two it will likely be a very real threat with all of them. Of course, you should not discount the potential for violent instability in other nuclear powers with ICBMs that could lead to missiles being fired. However, your position is ultimately rooted in the naive notion that there will never be a great power conflict ever again in the history of the world, which is just plain stupid and reckless to assume.

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.

Demon of Light said:
For ****'s sake even if we assumed all your absurd notions had validity to them it does nothing to prevent a mistake by a foreign military and in such a situation it would be better if the mistake was dealt with through surface-to-air missile intercepts than nuclear retaliation.

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.

Demon of Light said:
Except they wouldn't be wiped off the map and anyone with any understanding of the situation would know this. A government is liable to have any unconcealed nuclear infrastructure and military facilities destroyed by nuclear means,

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.

Demon of Light said:
but that just gives the party launching the weapons all the more incentive to make sure their first blow is as devastating and destructive as possible so as to minimize the damage of the counter-strike, or diminish the likelihood altogether. Nuclear war is not some act of reciprocal genocide.

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.

Demon of Light said:
Really? Do you have any ****ing clue what the costs would be if you are wrong about your naive little notions regarding the potential for nuclear war? Are you willing to bet your own life on it? You don't even allow the possibility that you might be wrong at the expense of potentially millions of innocent lives.

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.
 
Last edited:
It is also not hard to envision a situation where some group within those regimes during such instability fires off a missile.

It's even harder to imagine a situtation where such a group would choose to use an ICBM rather then another far more reliable method of delivery.
 
Back
Top Bottom