• 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

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.

The main disagreement I have with this posting is that it gives the impression that we Texans are all a bunch of raving lunatics! Please understand that this is a minority view among sane Texans. We, the sane Texans, understand that most people who are utilizing the programs afforded by government agencies do so out of need, not out of laziness.
 
Why is North Korea investing so many resources in development of the Taepodong II ICBM? There must be a reason.

Why is Iran devoting so many resources to the development of the Shabazz III ballistic missile? There must be a reason.

Why has Iran obtained the right to establish a military base on Venezuelan soil? There must be a reason.
 
Wonder if there will ever come a day when we could skip all the formalities and just launch schools or bridges at them instead.

Seeing a large modern hospital being hurled across the ocean would probably produce a neat shock and awe effect.
 
I dont think this is setting them up after the first successful test of a defense system that is far from being used in a real world situation

If that's the case, why are we so worried about NK, who has a nuke, but hasn't figured out how a make a missile that can actually leave NK airspace without breaking apart?
 
If that's the case, why are we so worried about NK, who has a nuke, but hasn't figured out how a make a missile that can actually leave NK airspace without breaking apart?

North Korea literally has nothing to do with this... Two totally different political systems and situations.
 
North Korea literally has nothing to do with this... Two totally different political systems and situations.

I'm not comparing the two, I'm only comparing your saying that Russia isn't worried about it, yet has threatened to attack us, and NK, who hasn't showed a capability of delivering a nuclear weapon, but we're concerned about them?

I'm not comparing NK to Russia, I'm comparing your example to mine.
 
I'm not comparing the two, I'm only comparing your saying that Russia isn't worried about it, yet has threatened to attack us, and NK, who hasn't showed a capability of delivering a nuclear weapon, but we're concerned about them?

I'm not comparing NK to Russia, I'm comparing your example to mine.

The article lists nothing about this new missile defense system. Its the same old talk from the Russians ever sense the cold war. Well if you ask officially we are worried about NK because the are a "rogue state" and we are currently still at "war" with them. But in my opinion i think its all about the fear to make people apathetic to their govs.
 
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.
(emphasis added)
What you're assuming here is the problem. You're betting Iran/N.Korea won't ever launch.

I hope you're right but considering the size of that bet I'd just as soon do a little hedging.
 
Last edited:
(emphasis added)
What you're assuming here is the problem. You're betting Iran/N.Korea won't ever launch.

I hope you're right but considering the size of that bet I'd just as soon do a little hedging.

why stop there?
there is a possibility - however remote - that canada will attack us. using the same 'logic', we should spend our nation's treasury defending against canada's threat
ditto for britian. and france. can't rule out mexico. yep, we have a whole world to choose from to point at and refer to as a threat, despite that they aren't really - as the ruse to 'justify' spending our nation's (now borrowed) wealth on armaments

how about doing something silly, instead. let's do a candid, real world assessment of those entities that actually DO pose a genuine threat to our country, its people and its interests, and then focus our efforts on thwarting them


but that would piss off the arms builders. the ones who fund politicians' runs for re-election
 
why stop there?
there is a possibility - however remote - that canada will attack us. using the same 'logic', we should spend our nation's treasury defending against canada's threat
ditto for britian. and france. can't rule out mexico. yep, we have a whole world to choose from to point at and refer to as a threat, despite that they aren't really - as the ruse to 'justify' spending our nation's (now borrowed) wealth on armaments

how about doing something silly, instead. let's do a candid, real world assessment of those entities that actually DO pose a genuine threat to our country, its people and its interests, and then focus our efforts on thwarting them

but that would piss off the arms builders. the ones who fund politicians' runs for re-election
If Canada turns into a theocracy - even a Christian one - then we should do exactly that. Ditto for the UK and France. If the Pope had access to nuclear weapons I'd be worried.

Mexico is already invading, or hadn't you noticed? :lol: ;)
 
why stop there?
there is a possibility - however remote - that canada will attack us. using the same 'logic', we should spend our nation's treasury defending against canada's threat
ditto for britian. and france. can't rule out mexico.

We're already being invaded by Mexico and not a single president in the past 50 years has figured out how to win that war.
 
We're already being invaded by Mexico and not a single president in the past 50 years has figured out how to win that war.

I dont think the State of Mexico has sent their army across our borders....
 
We're already being invaded by Mexico and not a single president in the past 50 years has figured out how to win that war.

I'm not so sure we "want" to win that one. A whole lot of jobs that native-born Americans won't do won't get done, or the at least the end product gets waaay expensive.
 
Obviously that's your opinion, not the opinion of the USA Department of Defence.

And so ... I will take your opinion with a grain of salt, of course, if you don't mind.

You mean the same DoD that has supported an long list of boondoggles?

Only a fool would listen to their "expertise". You should be saving your "salt" for what the DoD says
 
that's right! so what do you suggest?

let Iran and NK do all the weapons research necessary... while we wait crossed arms?:shrug:
Not at all.r&d,is riddeled by corruption.that's what needs to be stopped.
 
: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.

Me thinks you need to stop basing your beliefs on what you see in your FPS shooting games. Nothing you said addressed the technical problems I cited.

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.

Absurd? Really? Is that why the Russians built nuclear backpacks? Because it's absurd? Do you have any understanding of the technical challenges that a missile delivery system poses over simply smuggling parts in and delivering them via a truck?

Nothing you've posted shows you have ANY understanding of the engineering and technical problems with a missile system.

Seriously Demon, that may have been the weakest reply you've ever made here. Even Conservative can argue better than you did there.
 
Last edited:
(emphasis added)
What you're assuming here is the problem. You're betting Iran/N.Korea won't ever launch.

I hope you're right but considering the size of that bet I'd just as soon do a little hedging.

Real simple. The nations in question want to live and preserve power. Using a missile ends their reign.

No one here has EVER been able to answer my question as to when Iran (and related North Korea) has ever risked their political leadership's life and power.

Every person I asks that question to runs away
 
I think the money for missile defense will be cut. The country is broke and many entitlements that Democrats love have yet to be funded. The only source for funding Democratic entitlements is the defense budget. It will be slashed in order to maintain the standard of living of people who rely on these entitlements.
 
If you're a state or actor out to nuke America, do you do the following:

Spend hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially a billion building a single weapon on a single missile that has questionable reliability, questionable accuracy, is easily spotted well in advance of launch with a small yield war head that is easily tracked back to the launch location

OR

Build a few large yield bombs for much cheaper that are smuggled in pieces or built within the US using locally gathered material (that US scientists themselves proved possible) afters smuggling in the fissile material and then delivering by panel van and suicide bombers for 100% reliability and accuracy?

Anyone who argues that the expensive, easily tracked, easily destroyed, inaccurate single missile is the way to go is an idiot or is personally benefiting from the missile spending.
 
Real simple. The nations in question want to live and preserve power. Using a missile ends their reign.

No one here has EVER been able to answer my question as to when Iran (and related North Korea) has ever risked their political leadership's life and power.

Every person I asks that question to runs away

I think you are engaging in the psychological phenomenon called "mirror imaging." It's a habit of Western centric people to assume that non-western people use the same though processes and hold the same values as they do.

In the case of Iran, the theocracy is simpling following what they perceive to be the will of their god. North Korea is a rogue state that needs revenue. Weapons sales are one of the primary sources of revenue for the DPRK. They will sell their hardware to any one with cold hard cash.
 
If you're a state or actor out to nuke America, do you do the following:

Spend hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially a billion building a single weapon on a single missile that has questionable reliability, questionable accuracy, is easily spotted well in advance of launch with a small yield war head that is easily tracked back to the launch location

OR

Build a few large yield bombs for much cheaper that are smuggled in pieces or built within the US using locally gathered material (that US scientists themselves proved possible) afters smuggling in the fissile material and then delivering by panel van and suicide bombers for 100% reliability and accuracy?

Anyone who argues that the expensive, easily tracked, easily destroyed, inaccurate single missile is the way to go is an idiot or is personally benefiting from the missile spending.

Smugglers might be intercepted. If America doesn't have missile defenses then inaccurate ICBMs and nukes called "City Busters" can be used.

I don't think America will really develop effective missile defenses. The money needed for that will end up going in to Obamacare and other entitlements.
 
Back
Top Bottom