Slashdot Mirror

In your opinion, is a National Missile Defense system folly, as some would say, and an example of corporate welfare through defense contracts, or is it "proven enough" to be a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer funds as a necessary component of the defense of the nation?

It was suicide to fly aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and wherever the fourth one was headed (capitol hill? white house?). That didn't keep it from happening.

True, but there's really no valid analogy to be drawn between the 9/11/01 attack, which was performed by an essentially-landless terrorist group, and a ballistic missile launch from a land-based nation like North Korea.

...that doesn't mean [North Korea's] leaders won't "push the button" if, for instance, their government is collapsing. (You KNOW they'll blame us for it, and if they're on their way out deterrence makes no difference.)

To annihilate their own people in order to knock out -- what, two or three US cities? -- they would have to hate their own people more than the US. The same goes for other countries that have, or may later obtain, missiles with the range to strike the US. There's a vast difference between sending over a few missiles and getting missiles rained on you in response.

I'm not saying that a missile attack against the US is impossible, but I do think the odds are substantially lower than a WMD attack delivered by an alternative, more convenient mechanism. And, as the earlier-linked documentation and this new chart indicate, the odds aren't even good that the NMD system would actually do what it needs to if there ever is a ballistic missile attack against the US. Again, I only see it as a dangerous government jobs program -- any "bargaining" usefulness of it is distant history at this point.

If it was only to be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet Union, why is the US still developing it, under the new label of National Missile Defense (NMD), when the Soviet Union doesn't exist? Oh, right, the Bush administration says it's a way to defend against terrorists -- and we all know how likely it is that terrorists will use a complex ICBM when a nuclear device in a shipping container would be so much simpler.

More about the "Farce and Fraud" of the National Missile Defense program can be found via this chart and accompanying document.

Sounds like a government jobs program to me, and a dangerous one at that. I'll just keep hoping for "Regime Change 2004"...

If it was only to be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet Union, why is the US still developing it, under the new label of National Missile Defense (NMD), when the Soviet Union doesn't exist? Oh, right, the Bush administration says it's a way to defend against terrorists -- and we all know how likely it is that terrorists will use a complex ICBM when a nuclear device in a shipping container would be so much simpler.

More about the "Farce and Fraud" of the National Missile Defense program can be found via this chart and accompanying document.

Sounds like a government jobs program to me, and a dangerous one at that. I'll just keep hoping for "Regime Change 2004"...

Oh, I'm sure we learned from it, and we're so "clever" about applying what we learned, we still have the threat of nuclear war hanging over us today, even if it's not popular to discuss anymore (following the breakup of the Soviet Union) unless it's to get funding for the missile defense farce.

I won't argue that the potential for nuclear war is an odd argument against space exploration, but are you so sure of your statement, and, if so, why? If you're just assuming that "the Cold War is over so things are basically OK" then your assumptions are wrong. A little education wouldn't hurt. (The linked article was written by a former US Senator; there are other articles and resources on that site that may open your eyes a bit. Then again, many people are too apathetic to bother learning the facts when media views and "common sense" are so much more easy to digest.)