FreeThinker

Hahaha....

Oh wait, you were serious?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris If it wasn't for the great firewall of China maybe we could get some nice thoughts from some average chinese peeps.

TOJ

Well now, there's yer problem.

You think someone should have a modicum of knowledge about a subject before trying to debate it.... What a quaint idea.

__________________

Orius

Yes, I agree.

I didn't know that, thus I concede on this point.

If there are multiple targets?

If it's silly then explain why so I have something real to respond to.

In theory, with this program, the U.S. could achieve first strike and have the ability, via the shield, to disable Russia's second strike ability. This program has the potential to weaken nuclear deterrence. It's being built with the intention of stopping Middle Eastern attacks, but surely even you are not so naive that you cannot see its other potential benefits. Russia is America's arch rival, and this provides additional defense against Russia just as much as it does against the Mid East.

Yes, I know the process... and what is there to stop the solution from shifting to other targets outside of the scope of this project? Unless the U.S., somewhere along the line, has demonstrated that the technology is only capable of attacking airborne missiles and only capable of firing interceptors, and is not compatible with the potential implementation of offensive weaponry, then the security dilemma exists and there is a threat to Russia, however remote.

What is to prevent the missile launchers from being outfitted with warhead-capable missiles? Although the U.S. needs permission to put the launchers on foreign soil, it is still U.S. property and controlled by the U.S. What monitoring processes will be in place to ensure that no warheads will ever go near these launchers, ever?

The specifics of military technology are admittedly not my forte, but I only need to know enough to prove reasonable doubt as a justification for the security dilemma existing, and I've done that. I'm not saying, over all, that the defense shield is a bad idea necessarily, just that Russia's response to it is justifiable from an international relations perspective. It's not over reacting.

FreeThinker

Army Technology - Patriot Missile - Air Defense System

Read up on a topic before you post. It makes you seem less goofy.

FreeThinker

You should stick to debates about communism. Military technology is obviously not your forte.

Defensive missiles work with complex targeting systems on the ground and in the missile itself. They don't have the functionality to hit ground targets. You don't just type in MOSCOW on a computer and send the missile there.

Goobieman

In the case of multiple targets, multiple interceptors are launched.

NMD:
Kenetic energy weapons designed solely to take out incoming warheads.
Cuban Missile Crisis:
Intermediate ranged nuclear-tipped missiles designed to take out most citiies in the US with effectively no warning whatsoever.
The two situations arent even vaguely comparable.

IF the US were to build the 10,000 or so interceptiors necessary to do this.
The discussion revolves around 10 interceptors, not 10,000. Given that, the argument here is moot and the point stands:
10 interceptors has abolutely no effect on Russia's nuclear deterrent.

When that happens, let me know. Right now, the issue is 10 interceptors.

Like...?

Hardly. The fire contriol system and the interceptors are designed for one thing: To shoot down incoming warheads. Aside from that, there's no need to even consider modifying the system to 'shift targets' given the vast array of existing delivery systems.

Better question:
Given existing delivery systems, why bother?
There's no benefit to doing this, and there's an extraordiary cost involved.
And its not like it can be done in secret.

No, You haven't.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Orius

Military weapons installations near the soil of super powers? It's not all that vague.

Why would Russia fire 10,000 warheads? That would be mutually assured destruction, creating a rain of uranium. Not very realistic.

But you acknowledge it could happen, thus there is a security dilemma. Thanks for proving my point.

I can't peer into the future and know that?

Those systems could never be implemented under the terms being negotiated with Poland and Czech, but a more innocuous-looking system could.

Why bother? It appears much more innocuous to propose the installation batteries that fire interceptors, which can later be converted.

As I said before, what monitoring plans are in place to make sure the U.S. is sticking to the scope of this project only? If that is accounted for, then I will concede.

Please note that I don't really have a problem with this program, but I can see why Russia would which is why I'm playing devil's advocate here.

If you can prove without a doubt that the current system can not and will not ever be adapted to serve another function than the one the U.S. is presenting to Czech, Poland and Russia, then there is no need to worry; however, no such guarantee exists, and thus there is a security dilemma, and thus, yes I have.

Here's an example... maybe one day the U.S. will petition Czech and Poland to adapt its system for another purpose because there is some new, pressing need. What happens if they say no? What happens if they say yes?

bub

these 2 posts summarize everything

__________________
===|:-)

Goobieman

Its completely incomparable.
The Russian missiles could have destroyed the US before the US could react.
The NMD missiles can't do a THING to Russia.

You were discussing the ability oif the NMD to take out Russia's second strike capability. This is only possible if the US has ~10,000 interceptors, given that the Russians have about 6000 warheads.

My acknowledgement proves nothing, other than your argument here is meaninlgess, given that we're talking about 10 interceptors.

So, you dont really know what you're talking about when you talk about it.
Next point.

Thise systems are implemented now, and do not require that they be fielded in Europe.

See above. Meaningless.
We alkready have a zillion different ways to attack Russia. There's absolutely no reason to ever 'convert' the NMD into a system that can delivery payload onto Russian ground targets, given the vast multitude of ways we can already do it.

You cannot simply design, build and field missiles without testing them, especially those that carry nuclear warheads.
Our tests will be seen, thus destroying any 'secrecy'; without some veil of secrecy, there's no point in doing it (if even then).

Which means you dont know enough about this sor tof thing to effectively carry on a conversation about it.

Agan:
Asking for this 'proof' means you dont know enough about it, in specific, and the military world in general.

Orius

I'll say it again...

If you can't prove without a doubt that the current system can not and will not ever be adapted to serve another function than the one the U.S. is presenting to Czech, Poland and Russia, then a security dilemma is present and Russia must compensate for that. Thus far you have illustrated probabilities but not certainties.

In all probability the defense shield is well intended, but from a defense perspective, any remote chance that it could be used for offense now or in the future means that Russia's concerns are justified.

Next.