• 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 successfully tests anti-missile shield

I honestly can't tell whether this is sarcasm.
It's not.

Well, it does but not in any way of substance. The missile defence isn't as refined as it sounds, at least not yet.
Even at its planned level of deployment and efficacy, shooting down 50 Russian warheads changes nothing.
 
There you go, again...the US is always the bad guy, the provcateur, right? In this instance, it's the US backing Iran into a corner and Iran is just a victim of US/Israeli aggression.

I mean, it's not like Iran has not been waging war against by proxy against both the US and Israel. It's not Iran is not a brutally repressive regime that has already developed wmd's and, by their own admissions, are intent on developing nukes as well as "annihilating" Israel.

But, rather, it is the US that is the problem.

Sick. Weak. Pathetic.

You are dealing here with people who grew up hidding under the table everytime their teacher told them to practice emergency strategies against a nuclear attack by the Russians or Chinese.:lol:

This trauma has been inherited by the following generations of americans and there is no cure for it because the US leaders receive their political position and fame thanks to the companies that make great profit selling arms, including defense systems.

That US is the "agressor"...well, the world hasn't changed about landlords, servants, and slaves...in this world there is no equailty and to try to reach it such is a myth, some countries must suffer the place of slaves, other countries to comply the place of servants, and a small group of countries the position of masters. Don't even dream that the US populations will give away their privilege of imposing their power over other countries to make them equal, such should go against the american interests, so forget about it.

The laughable fact is that will all the intelligence working 24/7 against military attacks against US land, a small group of 19 terrorists made such a mess that did cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars without shooting a single bullet.

Any terrorist -nation or individual- knows that is a waste trying to attack US by air, water or land with heavy armament or missiles of any kind. On the other hand, this defense system must be set in order to work inside their assumed shield, because terrorists might try to enter in the computer system to use the same US missiles against US cities, this is a more factible future event because wars are mostly won not because good strategies or because heroes but because traitors are giving the help. ..."we must be also ready to defend of ourselves" must be their motto...:lol:
 
Last edited:
That wasn't a false dichotomy. So you are safe this time. :mrgreen:

Its just speculation which you are entitiled to.

I was talking about JMak's comments.

If that is your logic then why ever have considered constructing any number of weapons systems beyond bows and arrows, rocks, horses, etc.? The utility in developing new weapons systems, offensive or defensive, is to gain tactical or strategic advantage.
 
Any terrorist -nation or individual- knows that is a waste trying to attack US by air, water or land with heavy armament or missiles of any kind. On the other hand, this defense system must be set in order to work inside their assumed shield, because terrorists might try to enter in the computer system to use the same US missiles against US cities. This is a more factible future event...
:shock:
You're argung that it would be simpler/more effective for the terrorists to attack us with a fireship than a missile, and THEN you're arguing that it is even MORE likely that they will find a way to us our own ICBMs on our own cities.
:shock:
 
:shock:
You're argung that it would be simpler/more effective for the terrorists to attack us with a fireship than a missile, and THEN you're arguing that it is even MORE likely that they will find a way to us our own ICBMs on our own cities.
:shock:

Because they (terrorists) won't need to acquire such kind of arms (nuclear devices, missiles, etc). Look at the recent past, they used US passenger airplanes to attack US land, they can make the same in the future, just to use US arms against ourselves...a key traitor in the US attack/defense system could be their best ally...

____________________

The allies won the WW2 because Hitler had too many traitors around him...:roll:
 
Because they (terrorists) won't need to acquire such kind of arms (nuclear devices, missiles, etc). Look at the recent past, they used US passenger airplanes to attack US land, they can make the same in the future, just to use US arms against ourselves...a key traitor in the US attack/defense system could be their best ally...
Yes. Gaining control of US ICBMs and using them on US cities is the simplest and easiet option for terrorists who want to nuke US cities.
:roll:
 
Such as? We already have weapons that can take out satellites. We already have weapons to take out cruise missiles. We already have weapons that can shoot down planes. We already have weapons against air to surface.

So what exactly are we targeting with missile defense other then ICBMs?

You are aware that there are other classes of offensive missiles which aren't ICBMs? (Like, oh, the ones targeted in the tests?) Or perhaps you're using "ICBM" to mean something that it doesn't?
 
Because they (terrorists) won't need to acquire such kind of arms (nuclear devices, missiles, etc). Look at the recent past, they used US passenger airplanes to attack US land, they can make the same in the future, just to use US arms against ourselves...a key traitor in the US attack/defense system could be their best ally...

I don't think anyone's created an emoticon which really captures the proper reaction to this.
 
Asde from the fact that I said "stay ahead of the threat" precludes any necessity of this...
There in no question whatsoever that both Iran and NK are developing missiles that can reach the areas protected by the NMD.
Missiles - North Korea Special Weapons
Iran Missiles
(Note that these sites are not up-to-date)

So NK is a threat, everything coming from Iran says it is not.

LOL
Don't have a counter-argument, so you side-step by claiming that I am afraid.
LOL

Do you have a different reason for supporting the spending of 1/3 the budget on our military than these threats?

You havent provided any evidence to discard.
Disagree?
Show any evidence whatsoever that the NMD is intended to protect the US or its alloes from a residual second-strike missile attack.

Why do I need to prove this. You agree the NMD is intended to protect the US from a missile strike. I believe there is no legitimate threat and you have brought forward nothing new. North Korea is a wild card and Iran is complying. As conquerer has brought up, war in the 21st century cannot be won through 21st century technology.

Then tell me why you think it is a bad idea for the US to be able to shoot down a nuclear-tipped ICBM launched at an American city.

I did not say this. I think it is a bad idea to spread this technology across Europe and into the middle east. If the purpose is to defend America then the technology developed should remain for that purpose.
 
So we're bankrupting ourselves because of a threat 5 years away and that threat will only be realized with provocation.

Does your hyperbole and exaggeration know no bounds? The NMD is not bankrupting America.

By your logic any country with nuclear capabilities could "hold us politically hostage".

That's right. However, we have seen, current nuclear states have not attempted to do so. Given Iran's indisputable sponsorship for terrorism and numerous threats of annihilating Israel, I don't find it such a stretch to see Iran attempting to reserve the nuke threat as negotiating tool.

Are you really so deluded as to think this will happen?

Bad faith, again. I must be delusional because you disagree with me. :roll:

The only reason you believe this is because the hack of a president Bush said we should be afraid. I see all of the Neo-cons for what they really are. Cowards.

Really? Iran has not several times acknowledged its ambition to annihilate Israel, to see the US fall, engaged in many acts of war against the US? Noen of this has happened?

Oh wait...it has happened. But the US is at fault.
 
Russia is threatened by a defensive measure? This is ridiculous. The Russians are basically asking the US to keep the missile defence system down so they can attack if needs be. DEFENCE system - that 'defence' part is the key here as it not, in fact, 'attack' and thus not directly a threat to Russia.

Well, that's not why the Russians might feel threatened. The NMD would give the US some strategic advantage. Hence, the Russians perceive a shift in the balance of power, i.e., it's ability to successfully strike the US with missiles being diminished.

I don't hold the Russians as contemptable because they perceive such a shift. We take for granted the notion that the US ain't a first strike kinda-nation when it comes to major powers. But Russia doesn't and shouldn't count on that nature changing.
 
So NK is a threat, everything coming from Iran says it is not.
I'll take that as you admitting to the existence of a relevant threat.

Do you have a different reason for supporting the spending of 1/3 the budget on our military than these threats?
Epic fail here, on your part.

Why do I need to prove this.
Because "the NMD is intended to protect the US or its alloes from a residual second-strike missile attack" is YOUR argument.

You agree the NMD is intended to protect the US from a missile strike. I believe there is no legitimate threat and you have brought forward nothing new.
See above. You admit that NK is currently a threat.
As far as 'nothing new':
- You have learned a LOT more about the NMD, etc, from me than you knew before we started;
- As stated before, the "stay ahead of the threat" argument precludes any necessity of showing a -current- threat.

I did not say this.
So you agree that the US SHOULD be able to shoot down a nuclear-tipped ICBM launched at her cities.

I think it is a bad idea to spread this technology across Europe and into the middle east. If the purpose is to defend America then the technology developed should remain for that purpose.
The US should not help protect its allies?
So... you disagreed with the Cold War? WW2? WW1?
 
Last edited:
So NK is a threat, everything coming from Iran says it is not.

20 years of sponsored terrorism against the US and her allies indicates that there is no threat from Iran, huh? Iran's own stated convictions to annihilate Israel and see the US burn does not constitute a threat given that 20+ year history of committing acts of war against Israel and the US?

Well, I guess when you consider that the US is at fault for global terrorism and Iran's behavior...well, yeah, nothing to see here, move along.

Do you have a different reason for supporting the spending of 1/3 the budget on our military than these threats?

1/3 of the federal budget ain't being used to fund NMD.

Again, can you restrain your excessive hyperbole for even one moment?

Why do I need to prove this. You agree the NMD is intended to protect the US from a missile strike. I believe there is no legitimate threat and you have brought forward nothing new. North Korea is a wild card and Iran is complying. As conquerer has brought up, war in the 21st century cannot be won through 21st century technology.

Again, you behave as though no weapons system should be developed until after a threat has presented itself. That's just dumb. That logic would have us fighting with sticks and stones as such logic would discourage anyone from developing any other type of weapon. :roll:

I did not say this. I think it is a bad idea to spread this technology across Europe and into the middle east. If the purpose is to defend America then the technology developed should remain for that purpose.

Oh? So you would then argue that the US should not have shared air defense technology and weapons systems with Europe during the post-WWII period? The stated purpose for such systems when developed was to protect the US. :roll:

Dang, you'll do anything to permit the jihadists and mullahs in Tehran to hammer Israel, eh? Why?
 
The US should not help protect its allies?
So... you disagreed with the Cold War? WW2? WW1?

So NK is a relevant threat and should be countered. Are you arguing that to defend against this threat we must fund join Israeli-US missile defense systems (angering and threatening deterrence of all ME Muslim countries) and put them in Poland/Czech (dividing Russian/US relations further). If you are not, I don't think we have as many disagreements as it appears.

You are right, I have learned much more about the NMD, but nothing to convince me of the need to expand the program to our allies.

WWI and WWII are not relevant in this discussion, we are clearly beyond the simple alliances of those days. The Cold War is. We had no choice after Stalin refused democratic elections in Eastern Europe. Still, show me a country intent on spreading its borders through military means, threatening our own, and I'll push the button.
 
20 years of sponsored terrorism against the US and her allies indicates that there is no threat from Iran, huh? Iran's own stated convictions to annihilate Israel and see the US burn does not constitute a threat given that 20+ year history of committing acts of war against Israel and the US?

Well, I guess when you consider that the US is at fault for global terrorism and Iran's behavior...well, yeah, nothing to see here, move along.



1/3 of the federal budget ain't being used to fund NMD.

Again, can you restrain your excessive hyperbole for even one moment?



Again, you behave as though no weapons system should be developed until after a threat has presented itself. That's just dumb. That logic would have us fighting with sticks and stones as such logic would discourage anyone from developing any other type of weapon. :roll:



Oh? So you would then argue that the US should not have shared air defense technology and weapons systems with Europe during the post-WWII period? The stated purpose for such systems when developed was to protect the US. :roll:

Dang, you'll do anything to permit the jihadists and mullahs in Tehran to hammer Israel, eh? Why?

JMak I have no desire to debate you nor deal with your petty personal attacks and misrepresentations.
 
So NK is a relevant threat and should be countered.
I believe that you agreed that NK is a current threat, yes.
Given that therre is a threat, there's no cound argument against countering it.

Are you arguing that to defend against this threat we must fund join Israeli-US missile defense systems (angering and threatening deterrence of all ME Muslim countries) and put them in Poland/Czech (dividing Russian/US relations further).
Ijn operational terms, these are obviosly seperate issues.
However, I have no issue whatsoever with:
-Installing NMD-level coverage to protect any of our allies that want it;
-Selling to and assisting Israel with their BMD needs.

You are right, I have learned much more about the NMD, but nothing to convince me of the need to expand the program to our allies.
That's because you're hung up on the idea that only present, rather than future, threats are legitimate reason to act. Only a fool plans for surrent threats and ignores what migh reasonably happen in the future.

WWI and WWII are not relevant in this discussion, we are clearly beyond the simple alliances of those days.
You're arguing agsint providing protection to our allies. Thus, relevance.

The Cold War is. We had no choice after Stalin refused democratic elections in Eastern Europe
So you agree that the US -should- protect her allies, when necessary.
All over the map, you are.
 
Last edited:
JMak I have no desire to debate you nor deal with your petty personal attacks and misrepresentations.

What personal attacks? I have characterized your philosophy as I have seen it. Feel free to clarify your remarks if I am drawing inaccurate conclusions about you.

What misrepresentations?

And don't pretend that you do not misrepresent other poster's comments. I have drilled you on this before and will continue to do so.

If I have misrepresented you then clarify your remarks. I do it all the time.
 
Are you arguing that to defend against this threat we must fund join Israeli-US missile defense systems (angering and threatening deterrence of all ME Muslim countries) and put them in Poland/Czech (dividing Russian/US relations further). If you are not, I don't think we have as many disagreements as it appears.

There you go, again. You grant so much deference to feelings of other nations that you're willing to completely subjugate US sovereignty and national security to such feelings.

Seriously, do you believe that the US should forego placing a strategically defensive system in Poland or the Czech Republic or Israel because the Russians or Iranians may become angry?

Well?

You are right, I have learned much more about the NMD, but nothing to convince me of the need to expand the program to our allies.

Oh geez...what problem do you have with bringing our allies under our defensive unbrella? It's not like we have not explicitly done that already since WWII and effectively guaranteeing Western Europe's defense.

WWI and WWII are not relevant in this discussion, we are clearly beyond the simple alliances of those days.

They were never simple alliances. They have ebbed and flowed.

The point is that since the end of WWII the US has effectively guaranteed the defense of Western Europe by installing various offensive and defensive weapons systems. Taking NMD there or to Israel is an extension of this active allied defense policy.

We had no choice after Stalin refused democratic elections in Eastern Europe. Still, show me a country intent on spreading its borders through military means, threatening our own, and I'll push the button.

Wow, that's awfully courageous of you. :roll: A position that for you carries zero risk and no consequences. Meanwhile, the world ain't so easy and simple.

As well, what you've stated would mean you favored US military intervention in Georgia given that Russia had no intention of simply permitting Ossetia to establish itself as a new state. In other words, via military means, Russia would have annexed Ossetia.

Am I "misrepresenting" your words?
 
Yes. Gaining control of US ICBMs and using them on US cities is the simplest and easiet option for terrorists who want to nuke US cities.
:roll:

Someone has been watching too much 24. :lol:
 
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".

Of course, the arguments currently in place arent much better, but at least its detractors have decided that paerticular tack doesnt get them anywhere.
 
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".

Of course, the arguments currently in place arent much better, but at least its detractors have decided that paerticular tack doesnt get them anywhere.

I never believed the NMD "will never work", in fact I think its been shown that it does work.
 
There are many kinds of interceptors:
Strategic/national defense, for ICBMs
Theater/area defense, for IRBMs and tactical battlefield missiles
Area/point defense, for smaller tactical battlefield missiles.
Examples can be provided at your request.

Except that the biggest money drainer is the ICBM. Many of the ones you cited were in the works and in practice long before the current missile shield plan. And they were a heck of a lot cheaper and had battlefield uses. Like a phalanx system.
 
Listen to their rhetoric.
No one know what they are going to do, including them - thus, unpredictable.
Either state having an operational nuke and a missle platform that could reach the US should cause you GREAT concern.

lol. I noticed you deliberately ignored the rest of my post.

Your entire argument is based on comments, many comments made during bad economies. Care to look at the statements made by the past Iranian president during the economic boom?

You have completely failed to understand the notion of political unity within a country and how leaders make statements to maintain that.

We do know that the primary goal of both regimes is to stay n power. Nothing they have ever done has ever risked that. Why would they use a weapon that would in turn make them into radioactive ash?

The problem with North Korea getting a weapon isn't that they will use it. It is the proliferation as their economy is in the tank. Iran's problem is not that they will use it, it is that everyone else in the middle east will want one as a deterrent.
 
Except that the biggest money drainer is the ICBM.
Even if true - So?
You wanted to know what other kids of interceptors there were.
You were made aware.
Now, you're moving the goalpost?

Many of the ones you cited were in the works and in practice long before the current missile shield plan. And they were a heck of a lot cheaper and had battlefield uses. Like a phalanx system.
Your point?
BTW, the Phalanx system is a gun, not a missle system.
 
Back
Top Bottom