• 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!

US downs missile with new interceptor

It's very easy for us Americans to sit before our computers (that most people in the world could never afford), and presume "our" definition of "sane" applies perfectly to everyone else in the world. The fact is, it doesn't. the MAD concept works between us and Russia and China, because all these players understand MAD and want to avoid it. The concept accepts that if my cities are destroyed, yours are too. Since this is unacceptable to both sides, no launch occurs.

But if you're dealing with a fanatic(s) who "accepts" the destruction of his own cities/people as the "Will of God" or whatever his fanaticism dictates, the MAD concept falls flat on it's face. It ceases to work.

It wouldn't even require a fanatic necessarily, just mistaken belief. I remember when 9/11 occurred. Many of the people around me and even those in the news were speculating that the United States was teetering on the verge of collapse, as a result of panic. This was a ridiculous idea. The collapse of two buildings (albeit important ones) could not possibly trigger the collapse of the whole country. But plenty of American-born and bred Americans sincerely, honestly, believed America would fall into barbarism over the event. If Americans, who should know better, believed this, what of some fanatical Khomeini or Asian dilettante? They already perceive us as fat and morally weak. Perhaps they might also believe that the loss of one entire city could cause complete disarray, spasms of panic, followed by immediate collapse with no retribution at all. They might actually believe they could get away with it. We on these boards, know this is stupid, but who is to say that someone who sees us as moral defectives will have the same understanding?

ABMs such as the SM-3, are there to guard against failures of MAD for whatever reason. The US and Russia understand each other well enough, so such systems are not designed with Russia in mind. They're designed for those who cannot understand, or refuse to understand, or are simply ignorant of why MAD has protected us all for so long.
 
Missile defense systems aren't just about military advantage, but more importantly minimizing causality in the event of a missile attack. While we could easily wipe out any country that attempts an assault on us, avoiding large scale damage from that attack is something that we would have great difficulty doing in our present capacity.

What surprises me is how anyone can be against, or at very least think insignificance of, a development of technology that mitigates the power and destructive force of ICBMs.
 
It's very easy for us Americans to sit before our computers (that most people in the world could never afford), and presume "our" definition of "sane" applies perfectly to everyone else in the world. The fact is, it doesn't. the MAD concept works between us and Russia and China, because all these players understand MAD and want to avoid it. The concept accepts that if my cities are destroyed, yours are too. Since this is unacceptable to both sides, no launch occurs.

But if you're dealing with a fanatic(s) who "accepts" the destruction of his own cities/people as the "Will of God" or whatever his fanaticism dictates, the MAD concept falls flat on it's face. It ceases to work.

It wouldn't even require a fanatic necessarily, just mistaken belief. I remember when 9/11 occurred. Many of the people around me and even those in the news were speculating that the United States was teetering on the verge of collapse, as a result of panic. This was a ridiculous idea. The collapse of two buildings (albeit important ones) could not possibly trigger the collapse of the whole country. But plenty of American-born and bred Americans sincerely, honestly, believed America would fall into barbarism over the event. If Americans, who should know better, believed this, what of some fanatical Khomeini or Asian dilettante? They already perceive us as fat and morally weak. Perhaps they might also believe that the loss of one entire city could cause complete disarray, spasms of panic, followed by immediate collapse with no retribution at all. They might actually believe they could get away with it. We on these boards, know this is stupid, but who is to say that someone who sees us as moral defectives will have the same understanding?

ABMs such as the SM-3, are there to guard against failures of MAD for whatever reason. The US and Russia understand each other well enough, so such systems are not designed with Russia in mind. They're designed for those who cannot understand, or refuse to understand, or are simply ignorant of why MAD has protected us all for so long.

The MAD concept can be summed up effectively in the song Russians by Sting.

"We share the same biology,
regardless of ideology,
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope the Russians love their children too."

Change Russians to whomever it may applie to.

Unfortunately, when dealing with some extremist, their "love" of their children includes sacrificing them to/for their god.
 
The MAD concept can be summed up effectively in the song Russians by Sting.

"We share the same biology,
regardless of ideology,
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope the Russians love their children too."

Change Russians to whomever it may applie to.

Unfortunately, when dealing with some extremist, their "love" of their children includes sacrificing them to/for their god.

I forgot about that song:
 
Missile defense systems aren't just about military advantage, but more importantly minimizing causality in the event of a missile attack. While we could easily wipe out any country that attempts an assault on us, avoiding large scale damage from that attack is something that we would have great difficulty doing in our present capacity.

What surprises me is how anyone can be against, or at very least think insignificance of, a development of technology that mitigates the power and destructive force of ICBMs.

Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?
 
Yeah like people who don't do anything all day. :roll:

Sent from my blasted phone.


Yea you know education, health care, food programs, infanstructure.. You know the **** that helps people instead of killing people.. You can roll your eyes all ya want..
 
Here is why I don't agree.

1) It has taken 20 years and an unconscionable amount of investment to have one success (after many failures) in a controlled environment.
2) It will take another fortune to develop one that is fairly reliable.
3) Other than our noble owners and their underground bunkers, who else will be protected? New York? San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Tulsa or any other population centers?
4) Who is likely to attack us? The smaller rogue states are much more likely to use another form of delivery than an ICBM. The medium rogues (Pakistan) have many more ICBMs, so how many will we build? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
5) Will we also need these for our allies? Which ones?
6) Since Russia has already declared they will enter the race, will we trigger another arms race?
7) No, I think this is an implausible concept. We will do ourselves more harm by investing in Sci-Fi than in education.

Of course, it's all just IMHO. Maybe it's a great idea. Does anybody think this is worthwhile? Another 20 years and trillions of dollars?
 
Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?

How is that relevant to my point? I don't have an inventory of every countries weapons, but regardless of whether it is currently a threat, it is a long term concern and security from such threats is important even if the threat isn't immediate.
 
Here is why I don't agree.

1) It has taken 20 years and an unconscionable amount of investment to have one success (after many failures) in a controlled environment.
2) It will take another fortune to develop one that is fairly reliable.
3) Other than our noble owners and their underground bunkers, who else will be protected? New York? San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Tulsa or any other population centers?
4) Who is likely to attack us? The smaller rogue states are much more likely to use another form of delivery than an ICBM. The medium rogues (Pakistan) have many more ICBMs, so how many will we build? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
5) Will we also need these for our allies? Which ones?
6) Since Russia has already declared they will enter the race, will we trigger another arms race?
7) No, I think this is an implausible concept. We will do ourselves more harm by investing in Sci-Fi than in education.

Of course, it's all just IMHO. Maybe it's a great idea. Does anybody think this is worthwhile? Another 20 years and trillions of dollars?

How would you invest money into education to improve its quality?
 
Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?

How is that relevant to my point? I don't have an inventory of every countries weapons, but regardless of whether it is currently a threat, it is a long term concern and security from such threats is important even if the threat isn't immediate.

Probably US, Russia and France. So I guess it would be a good idea to be friendly with Russia and nuke France.
 
Yea you know education, health care, food programs, infanstructure.. You know the **** that helps people instead of killing people.. You can roll your eyes all ya want..

Oh yes, God forbid we spend money to better defend ourselves instead a providing healthcare programs and food programs to people who would have healthcare and food if the quit being lazy and actually worked to better themselves instead of just suckling at the government teat.

That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.
 
Oh yes, God forbid we spend money to better defend ourselves
Yes its not like we spend about 6 times the amount as the second place runner up in military expenditures (China).

instead a providing healthcare programs and food programs to people who would have healthcare and food if the quit being lazy and actually worked to better themselves instead of just suckling at the government teat.
Ahh yes privatized for profit healthcare works real great. Its like the rest of the industrialized world are lazy bums right?

That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.
It has? Thats why we spend so much "teat" money on war and "national defense"....


Makes the military industrial complex real happy i know...
21mc61e.png
 
Last edited:
Here is why I don't agree.

1) It has taken 20 years and an unconscionable amount of investment to have one success (after many failures) in a controlled environment.
2) It will take another fortune to develop one that is fairly reliable.
3) Other than our noble owners and their underground bunkers, who else will be protected? New York? San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Tulsa or any other population centers?
4) Who is likely to attack us? The smaller rogue states are much more likely to use another form of delivery than an ICBM. The medium rogues (Pakistan) have many more ICBMs, so how many will we build? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
5) Will we also need these for our allies? Which ones?
6) Since Russia has already declared they will enter the race, will we trigger another arms race?
7) No, I think this is an implausible concept. We will do ourselves more harm by investing in Sci-Fi than in education.

Of course, it's all just IMHO. Maybe it's a great idea. Does anybody think this is worthwhile? Another 20 years and trillions of dollars?

Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.
 
Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?



Probably US, Russia and France. So I guess it would be a good idea to be friendly with Russia and nuke France.

Sorry, I'm not getting your point. You'll need to be a little more clear.
 
Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.

2.5 billion over nine years on a Government expenditure, (1.25, by your statement), is a very small amount of money, especially for the long term benefit this field would give us. That would average out to about 138 million each year. For comparative purposes:
Foodstamp Baseline - CBO

70 billion dollars for food stamps in 2010. 5.83 billion a month. 191 million a day. So, without this program, each year we could ALMOST fund food stamps for a day. No, the spending on this program was not significant.

(I want to just note that I'm not making a direct claim about the high spending on foodstamps here. My feelings on that aren't relevant to the topic. All I'm hoping to do is demonstrate how little we spent on this relevant to common government expenditures.)
 
justabubba... I am not the right person to be asked this question. I am only posting a breaking news.

The USA Department of Defence is the entity to ask.
well, i do hope you can appreciate why the question was asked

iran has not initiated an attack on a sovereign nation in two centuries
which causes me to question why we would believe there is a legitimate basis to incur massive expenditures to develop anti-ICBM weaponry by a nation which is not inclined toward attacking others
i can only conclude that the government's propaganda media is doling out kool aid to whomever is thirsty enough to drink it, as a means to allocate a substantial portion of our nation's treasure toward military weaponry and away from the social safety net. in short, encouraging the public to not object to its decision to choose guns over butter
 
Of course, I'm pulling my figures out of my ass because I can't find 2 sources that agree with each other and my sense of it is that the United States can't even buy toilet seats for 2.5 billion. So, if we're really going to get the "star wars" defense system for a few billion, sure, WTH, I'm now a brad new enthusiast. But I really doubt that this is the case and by the time it was all operational, I'd be very surprised if it were so nominal a cost. I like the word trillion so I tend to think in those amounts :). Also, I'm talking about the whole "srtar wars" project since Reagan and you're speaking about one specific project - the SM-3 - which begs the question of what the SM-1 and SM-2 cost us.

Ah, my vision of education. I would build magnificent schools, full of air, light, computers, labs and even residences for those children whose families are failures and don't mind letting them live in a positive environment. I would hold teachers to the highest standards and pay them at least as well as bureaucrats. I would take retired people whose arts are being lost, like machining, die making etc. and pay them to educate those with aptitude. That's the short form of my grandiose plans.




Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.
 
How many countries have that capability? Us and Russia? I don't think we're trying to destabilize our relations with Russia.

That's my subtle point.

The only nation that can possibly pull that kind of attack on us won't attack us. And the alleged threat we're building this weapon against won't use a missile.

Hence why I call this corporate welfare. It's nothing but a handout to defense contractors.

Maybe at some point in time it will be able to stop a Russian attack. But that's a long time from now.
 
Several quick points:

1. As far as I know, this system is aimed at addressing a narrower issue (potential small-scale missile attack), not dramatically transforming the global balance of power by making larger nuclear arsenals e.g., Russia's, irrelevant.

At the moment yes, but the Russians are raising concerns that eventually this system, once it reaches a certain point will be used against them. As for the narrower issues, it's rather idiotic as why the hell would Iran or North Korea waste time and money on a unreliable system that can deliver only one weapon when they can simply smuggle in a few weapons for much cheaper and deliver them via panel van? It really doesn't make any sense when you put your feet in the shoes of who is likely to actually attack us. Russia right now can easily overpower our system. Iran and North Korea (and NSA terrorists) will not use a missile. So the question becomes, why the hell are we wasting billions on a system that will never be used? Furthermore, why aren't we allocating that money to securing our ports and borders to prevent a smuggling operation? I agree with your position, I just took it a few steps further as to why missile defense is a waste of money.

2. The system is aimed at reducing the risk of a small-scale attack, not eliminating all risk.

Nothing short of turning our enemies to glass can eliminate all risk. But missile defense defends against a non-existent threat. Well, aside from losing votes in an election year. But that's another story.

3. If the system is effective, it will be more difficult--not impossible--for a rogue state to attack the U.S. or U.S. allies. The U.S. has the geographic depth to absorb the kind of attacks you describe. Although areas hit by such attacks would suffer catastrophic damage/casualties, national survival would not be threatened.

It doesn't matter if the system is effective or not when the type of attack it is designed to stop never comes. Terrorists and enemy states are confined by the same budgetary pressures we face. It makes no sense at all to spend huge sums of money on a unreliable delivery system to deliver one weapon that will be returned a thousand fold. It makes far more sense for our enemies who are confined by small budgets to build numerous weapons, smuggle them into the US and delivery them via suicide bombers driving panel vans and moving trucks. No amount of missile defense can stop that. Their goal is to maximize the number of Americans they can kill. A single miniaturized weapon on top a unreliable missile hitting one city hardly packs the punch of delivery six large weapons via truck.

4. The logistics involved with the kinds of attacks you describe are not seamless. Arguably, missile attacks might be easier to pull off, as one doesn't have to worry about smuggling and assembly, all of which create opportunities for detection. Indeed, the complex logistics involved with such attacks have likely contributed to the lack of such attacks even with the widely-documented security flaws you described.

This I have to disagree with. The necessary technical expertise, equipment and materials to build an ICBM that is reliable, stable and accurate is in the billions of dollars. The cost to miniaturize a nuclear device to actually fit on a crude reliable, stable and accurate ICBM is in the hundreds of millions. Furthermore, it is incredibly easy for the enemy to watch what you're doing and attack you before the launch happens simply by satellite surveillance. I'm not saying that panel van is easy. I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot easier than building a ICBM, shrinking your nuke down to size and actually pulling off a launch. On top of that, it is instantly traceable as to where the nuke came from. That goes contrary to everything our enemies leaderships have shown. Launching a traceable missile leads to their demise. Smuggling weapons in is far harder to track down and takes considerably more time and gives them denial capacity.

I really don't get how we haven't been attacked yet with a nuclear device. Our ports are unsecured. Our borders unsecured. There's plenty of radioactive material out there poorly or not even guarded. If terrorists or states can't even pull the easy way off, why would they go the hard way?

In short, far from seeking to transform the global balance of power, the system is intended to provide some additional insurance against a small-scale missile attack (intentional or accidental). Investing some resources in defensive capabilities, rather than relying strictly on offensive ones, gives the nation greater flexibility and enhances its security. Nothing the nation does can eliminate all risk.

At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars? We're better off building a souped up version of the Israeli Iron Dome system then the corporate welfare monstrosity we have now.
 
New developments are always necessary; otherwise you may end up with something similar to a French WWII Maginot Line defense that is ineffective and outdated.

You do realize that the Maginot line utterly annihilated the German units that attacked it no? What made the Maginot line unsuccessful was politics. The French thought (probably rightfully) that it would be bad politics to build it all the way to the ocean. Kind of suggests you're going to sellout your ally to the Germans. The Germans took advantage of what was politics over stragetic concerns and simply bypassed it after getting the snot shot out of them from earlier frontal attacks.
 
It still amazes me sometimes how some people think. Yeah, I know, after all this time, it shoud not be surprising.

There are those that argue that the money is better spent elsewhere. However, no nation can survive for long without the ability to defend itself. America would in no way be worse off finacially or functionally if all of welfare and most, if not all, social programs are removed, it would be in very dire straits if all of Defence is removed.

Explain to me the intelligence of building a defense system that will never be used.

Then there are the "it doesn't really work, so we shouldn't pursue it" crowd. There has never been nor will there ever be anything that works at 100% the first time it is tried. But, we know, that no matter what field you want to apply it to, that you cannot reach your goal without first starting down a path leading to it. Karl Benz was not sucessful the first time he tried to make an automobile. Robert Goddard was not sucessful the firsttime he tried to make a rocket. The Wright Bro. were not sucessful the firsttime they tried to fly an airplane. Etc... Where would the world be if these and others had simply said "it doesn't work" after earlier attempts and chose not to continue?

Missile defense only works against nations who won't use missiles. It's like banning gangsters from owning RPGs when they specialize in knife fights. Yeah sure it will stop a few missiles here or there but when our enemy will not use a missile, why are we spending billions on it?

And there are the "we don't really need that crowd". It cost far more if we wait until we need it to even start to develope it. America, to date, has never entered a war that it was prepared to fight at the beginning of hostilities. Due to increased power, range and effectiveness of modern weapons, when the next big one starts, we very well may not have the time to ramp up to meet the challenge.

Then how about we build a system that actually is geared towards non-nuclear short range missiles? Something like the Israeli Iron Dome. I have yet to see any of you explain why Iran or North Korea would actually use an ICBM.

Any costs that increases our capabilites to be more accurate, better equiped, reduces the amount of time necessary to sucessfully win a war and increases the chances of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines will come home alive is beyond any reasonable doubt worth it. Especially when compared to something like Welfare. Every Senator and Congressman should vote on military projects as if it is their children's lives at stake.

So guns over butter always, even when the defense tool is for an attack that won't come?
 
Yeah, all they need to do is spend several weeks sneaking a nuclear weapon the size of a person onto hostile foreign soil without being detected. Way easier and far more effective than just firing a missile from thousands of miles away that will reach its target in less than twenty minutes. :roll:

Yes. You do it in parts. Just like the drug dealers. Considering how we still lack radioactive detectors in sufficient quantities and strength, it's not hard. Furthermore, as Graham pointed out in his book on nuclear proliferation, you can make a simple nuclear device sans fissile material from parts at radioshack. The US senate commissioned a study where US scientists actually MADE simple nuclear devices sans fissile material and brought them into the senate to point out why the Nunn-Lugar CTR was vital. So all they really need to smuggle in is the fissile material and possible some special explosives. They can find the rest of the parts here.

And do you have any idea just how hard it is to make a reliable, multi stage ICBM that is reliable and accurate? Furthermore, do you have any idea how hard it is to conceal such a weapon from satellites before a launch? Furthermore, do you have any idea just how hard it is to miniaturize a nuke so it can fit on a ICBM? I'm thinking no to all of those. The US had to literally hire former Nazis to make rockets for us because we couldn't do it. And we poured billions into the program. Japan took decades to get the know how to build reliable satellite launch rockets. The crazy notion that a poor ass state can actually make a reliable, accurate multi-stage rocket that can deliver a miniaturized nuclear weapon without us knowing well in advance of a launch is pretty bat****.

If you don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds through the upper atmosphere the "panel van" might be a useful technique. There are about a dozen other good reasons why what you are suggesting is completely absurd for countries with the capability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile.

Want to try to name some of them?

It appears you think it's super easy for a cash strapped nation to build a multi-stage reliable and accurate weapon at the same time miniaturizing a nuclear device and hiding the whole thing from satellites.

Sounds like you're pushing the absurd argument here.
 
You do realize that the Maginot line utterly annihilated the German units that attacked it no? What made the Maginot line unsuccessful was politics. The French thought (probably rightfully) that it would be bad politics to build it all the way to the ocean. Kind of suggests you're going to sellout your ally to the Germans. The Germans took advantage of what was politics over stragetic concerns and simply bypassed it after getting the snot shot out of them from earlier frontal attacks.

The line was not continued because it was thought the Ardennes forest was too thick to penetrate. Also the line did not take into account aircraft that can fly right over it. Either way, it was a failure because of non-dynamic military planning. They built it and thought they were done, but things changed with time and they didn't adapt and upgrade, so they were beaten easily.
 
Yes. You do it in parts. Just like the drug dealers. Considering how we still lack radioactive detectors in sufficient quantities and strength, it's not hard. Furthermore, as Graham pointed out in his book on nuclear proliferation, you can make a simple nuclear device sans fissile material from parts at radioshack. The US senate commissioned a study where US scientists actually MADE simple nuclear devices sans fissile material and brought them into the senate to point out why the Nunn-Lugar CTR was vital. So all they really need to smuggle in is the fissile material and possible some special explosives. They can find the rest of the parts here.

And do you have any idea just how hard it is to make a reliable, multi stage ICBM that is reliable and accurate? Furthermore, do you have any idea how hard it is to conceal such a weapon from satellites before a launch? Furthermore, do you have any idea just how hard it is to miniaturize a nuke so it can fit on a ICBM? I'm thinking no to all of those. The US had to literally hire former Nazis to make rockets for us because we couldn't do it. And we poured billions into the program. Japan took decades to get the know how to build reliable satellite launch rockets. The crazy notion that a poor ass state can actually make a reliable, accurate multi-stage rocket that can deliver a miniaturized nuclear weapon without us knowing well in advance of a launch is pretty bat****.

:roll: I think you just like reading Tom Clancy novels and then expect the world to work the same way. The whole "Nazi" thing pretty much demonstrates the simplistic nature of your views on this subject. Needing to get some better expertise in order to get ahead of the Soviets 60 years ago has no bearing on what it is like today.

Want to try to name some of them?

It appears you think it's super easy for a cash strapped nation to build a multi-stage reliable and accurate weapon at the same time miniaturizing a nuclear device and hiding the whole thing from satellites.

Sounds like you're pushing the absurd argument here.

Sorry, but anyone who seriously talks about panel vans being the way it is going to be done has gone beyond absurd. That is a scare tactic, not an actual threat. No, I do not think it is "super easy", but it is a hell of a lot more likely to be successful.
 
Back
Top Bottom