Replies to post #13962 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[jbennett53]

SoxFan, I believe a missile defense system is doable. The problem is that for all the anti missles you build a "terror" state can ship nuclear devices in freighters to the US. I do not believe that most realise the small number of these weapons required to essentially put an end to our way of life for decades. I also am quite sure that these could be "cloaked" and could not be found without actual physical discovery. This is the reason that I am against bullying behaviour in that it only causes ill will. Which leads to hate and then the desire to deliver payback. Not to mention that if one looks back over the history of our meddling and bullying one can quickly see that the consequences were bad for most involved and any gains negligible

[webster groves]

<<It's welfare for our defense department.>>

I think it's more welfare for defense contractors rather than the DOD itself. The money would be better spent paying soldiers decent wages and benefits, decent on-base housing for families, and decent retirement and VA benefits for the vets.
But doing that doesn't help the military industrial complex (remember that's Ike talking).

For every $1 spent on anti-missile defense, one can circumvent detection statistically for .05, so even if we can afford to outspend our adversaries, it will be very expensive. Current ABM defenses also rely on missiles traveling on great circle paths around the globe, with the assumption that shortest path is the only path (e.g., ABMs in Alaska). New technologies allow stalling paths for missiles in semi-orbit before re-entry. It costs extra time, but the target isn't going anywhere.

The whole idea of using missiles to deliver warheads is based on the idea of deterrance, where a sure counterblow would follow any first strike. But by using non-conventional delivery such as civilian airliners or containers ships, we as targets don't necessarily know our attacker. In the world envisioned by Rumsfield. we will have lots of likely foes, all to willing to thump us. So maybe we should launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against them all. I'm sure some in the administration would agree to this nightmare.

-wg