Slashdot Mirror
NASA Sends One Up; DoD Shoots One Down
drbrain writes: "They seem to have succeeded again, their Helios is their first success of a remotely, solar self powered aircraft. Looks kinda weird. They plan to use it for research and the military." Meanwhile, Guppy06 and many others sent in stories about a successful test of the Star Wars missile defense system, which will protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have and would be silly to use, when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke.
He's right. Can any of you deny the obvious barrage of liberal bullshit in each story nowadays? It didn't used to seem that way. Slashdot is quickly becoming a lousy liberal propaganda rag. Why not just try to be unbiased? Oh well, there's always wired. Which actually has stories instead of 2 line liberal remarks.
I sincerely doubt that particle accelerator lab custodians are being instructed in the finer points of fissionable material detection. Since you are either an ass or a punk to be so insulting, I will treat you accordingly. Let's begin...
Your "details" are the laughable byproduct of amateur propagandists in the service of a brutal dictatorship by evil, senile octagenarians who oppress mud-shoveling peasants. Because of your third world understanding of military technology, I see that further clarification will be necessary.
1) An "Airstrike" is not the same as a "missle attack". I am sure the distinction escapes you, since you also seem to believe that a reconnaisance craft (think waterbuffalo peacefully munching in rice patty) in international waters could deliberately ram a second-rate mig jockey (think drunken ratsnake, striking at aforementioned yak) who can readily be seen nearly killing himself on tape on a previous "intercept".
An "airstrike" is carried out with manned aircraft, while a "missle attack" is usually understood to be an unmanned attack by means of ballistic or cruise missles.
For example, when we blew up the spies in the Chinese embassy because the Chinese consulate refused to leave a warzone, we used an airstrike. When we level China's cities and reduce its five thousand year culture into a smoking pile of glowing ash in less than thirteen minutes because they were stupid enough to attack the Republic of China on the island of Taipai, it will be a "missle strike".
China is afraid of NMD because:
1) They know we will eventually get it to work, and that it might be feasible to build a large scale system, thereby thwarting their plans for world domination.
2) It will force them to upgrade their pitiful strategic nuclear forces, which is very expensive for a planned economy whose main export is mud.
3) We will be able to stop them cold when they try to reclaim Taiwan by force, since Taiwan would never voluntarily rejoin a disfunctional country which treats its own people like it treats the Tibetans.
As an afterthought, Russia has already proposed a) building one of its own design, and b) halving their current nuclear forces to save 16 billion which could be better spent paying the pitiful starving rabble they call an army. If they really want to get into another arms race with us again then that is their economic problem.
As for the Olympics, any idiot that thinks that what happened in Munich was good for the Olympics must have a pretty myopic view of what constitutes good marketing.
As for the Human Rights Commission, which the U.S. founded BTW, the shutout of the U.S. representative is merely a sign of how far Europe has fallen out of touch with reality.
Europe can have the U.N. It's become a support group for dictators and tyrants who deserve extermination, not diplomatic recognition. It is sad that these Eurotrash seem so enamored with "the man on horseback". Last time it only took 50 million lives. I wonder what it will take next time.
As for your treehugging rubbish, which you cannot possible substantiate, why don't you read up on the three gorges dam. I don't think there is anything wrong with the project, other than many chinese archeological treasures will be submerged, but if you are really the naive liberal, as opposed to a lackey for the Chinese regime, you probably will get your panties all in a bunch over it.
As I have explained in some other place:
The danger is not that the system will work -- it's that US will behave as if it works. If it just worked, no one would care unless nuclear war actually started, but if it affected US' behavior at the extent that US started causing completely unacceptable damage to everyone else, the only possible remedy would be to actually attack US. Missile defense, of course, wouldn't do much, so US will respond with their nuclear weapons.
So, for US it's a game "give me your wallet!" while for the rest of the world it's damage that US causes by looting everyone vs. damage from nuclear war that will happen if measures that can stop the looting were taken.
With enough looting (US is unaware of the game rules for others and doesn't put any limits to looting) at least for some nuclear-capable country the perceived cost of looting will outweight the cost of nuclear war, but once one country started a war with US, others can only decrease the amount of damage to themselves by making the war shorter, and that means attacking one of the countries that originally started it. It will be more beneficial to attack US because that would also eliminate the possibility of the subsequent nuclear war if some other country will make the same decision as the originator of the war even if the originator will be defeated, so everyone except extreme US loyalists will have no choice but to attack US. This means that in the long run the global nuclear war is the only possible outcome.
It may be argued that after the first failure of missile defense everyone would expect that the US would stop the looting, so they will then attack the original aggressor and not the US. This is unlikely because then the US, if it will survive the war, will continue the same behavior, relying on the precieved support of the majority of the nuclear-capable countries, so attacking the aggressor will still increase the probability of the appearance of the new aggressor in the future, while attacking US will reduce it. In any case, at least one large-scale nuclear war inevitably happens.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Starwars is a completely different deal based on completely different methods.
People seem to miss this.
They also miss that Bush is not proposing to build this defense system, he is only testing its technology. Deployment of a defense system would be a completely different consideration.
IF the technology proves feasable, deployment will then be up for consideration, but not a guarantee.
Thanks for the worth reading post on something other than the nukes :)
I'll be rather annoyed though. Oh, and dead too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Shoulda previewed......shoulda been like this:
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective.
Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Russia ALREADY HAS LOTS OF NUKES! Even if they had to build more, they would do it. They've done it before without worrying about the consequences to their economy.
Either way, it wouldn't take very many to fuck us up anyway. This missile defense system won't be able to handle very many missiles. And if they decide to equip those missiles with even rudimentary countermeasures, we will be severely fucked.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And that jeopardizes our supreme interests how? All the treaties we made with the Soviet Union were inherited by Russia. I fail to see how this jeopardizes us in any way.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Don't we have our own nukes in Japan too? Plus nukes in subs all over the place? The US supposedly has over 10K nuke missiles total, and plenty more warheads IIRC. Whatever happens, we have the capability to destroy the entire world if we chose to. We don't need nuclear allies.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
In his defense, I don't think a single successful test proves a thing about the viability of the system. The test was most likely done under ideal conditions, and the Military has been known to give their toys less than realistic advantages when the public is actually interested in the outcome. If someone is going to launch at us, I don't see how they can fail to take the system into account. In that case I would think they would use some sort of countermeasures. This has always been the point that most of the system's critics bring up. The system should be pretty easy to fool with relatively simple countermeasures. When it can be shown to deal with such things, then I may start believing it's worthwhile technologically. Politically is a whole other story.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That stuff I understand. What I don't buy is that some country is gonna buy the stuff to build a nuke or buy a nuke outright and launch it at us. See, these guys don't have a problem sending some of their people out to die to take a whack at us. But if it was their entire country, and with it their way of life, religion, etc. on the line, even the biggest nuts wouldn't be able to come up with a reason to do it. What we should be fearing is the smaller weapons smuggled that could be smuggled in. That seems to be a lot more likely than someone launching at us and thereby ensuring their own destruction.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So a power would indeed threaten to use them--and if the U.S. only lost one city, do you think that world opinion would support the genocide of an entire nation in response? What did the women and children of that country do to merit death, especially when we have not been totally destroyed?
Same as those in the US city, nothing. But if they launch a nuke first, I think the world would expect us to retaliate in kind. The surprise would be if we chose not to. I doubt we'd take that route though. It would probably depend on whether or not we believe they might have more nukes as well as any other consequences that our launching might have for us, them, their neighbors, etc.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If it's a missile, it will come from some country, or from a ship which can be traced. As others have pointed out though, if an individual terrorist group (i.e. not state sponsored) manages to get their hands on everything they need for a nuke, they aren't likely to wait around to try and get their hands on an icbm as well. They'll build the bomb and smuggle it into the country by truck, plane, ship, or some other means. Then they'll detonate it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The simple fact that we have the capability of stopping such an attack would probably do more to halt nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states than anything else ever has.
This seems to be one of the main points of contention (second only to the likelihood of someone actually launching a missile at us when there are better and much less traceable methods of delivery). How exactly will this halt nuclear proliferation? Won't they just work towards building up more and better missiles so that they will once again have the power to be on equal footing with the US? Is China likely to just give up and concede that the US will be the lone gunman of the world? Hell no. They'll keep working at stealing our tech and creating their own to try to at least level the playing field. There will be another arms race. We'll end up with more nukes in the world rather than fewer. Additionally, if we end up as the supreme nuclear power in the world, and especially if we use that position to try to influence things in the world, wouldn't that be like putting a big "Nuke Me!" sign on our back? Won't we see a huge increase in pissed off foreigners joining terrorist organizations to try to rid the world of the US menace?
Now, that's the argument I'm putting forth in a sort of devil's advocate kind of way. I'd like to see it rebutted successfully and thoroughly. I have been thinking about this and I can see both sides of it. I like the idea of having a defense against nukes. I don't want the US to get hit anymore than anyone else here does. I just don't think that this is being done in the right way. I think we're going to just end up pissing everybody off and it's going to blow up in our faces (possibly literally).
The only thing that has really kept us at peace is the fact that we don't want to die and neither do our enemies. We both know that if either of us attacks, we'll both be utterly destroyed. Now, with a defense system in place, we've put China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc. in an inferior position. Suddenly their nuclear arsenals aren't really a threat anymore. What will they do? I think they'll build up until they are a threat again. Either they will have missiles that can fool our system, or they'll have enough to saturate our defenses.
Now there is the possible outcome that we'll see China and maybe India build up to roughly the same capability as Russia currently has. Then they may feel that they are secure again. They could defeat our defenses. They will likely be pissed off that we forced them into such spending though. But if that happens, then we'll have our defense against rogue missiles, and we'll still have the same basic MAD principle applying to us and our largest possible adversaries.
If that's the way it works out, fine. I just don't know if that's the way it will work out, or what other consequences we'll face because of that. I just hope the government is giving the same attention to making sure bombs and fissable material are not brought into the country through other means. That just seems to be the most likely method of attack.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
They hate us because we practice an interventionist foreign policy, which is another issue altogether (and not one I want to debate).
I think I see your point. This is probably what Bush meant in his speech yesterday when he said that NMD would allow us to continue to "spread freedom" in the world. Basically we will still be able to bomb whomever we wish without facing serious retribution.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
3. You suggest that if out of 100 missiles one got through that the attack would be 100% effective, and the system would therfor be ineffective. This is akin to arguing that condoms should not be worn during sex because they only reduce the chance of contracting an STD to 5% instead of 0%. Your argument is flawed, and the hundred million people that are or are not killed by the 99 missiles intercepted in your example disagree with you.
I think what he was saying is that if 100 missiles were launched at ONE CITY (e.g. DC), and only 1 got through, that's all it would take to destroy the city. 100% effectiveness. Russia has thousands of nukes. We couldn't possibly survive a full launch by them (and there's no reason for them not to launch everything they've got, seeing as how the world will likely come to an end shortly after that. Might as well get their money's worth.)
The real problem I see is that the nations that have missiles aren't likely to use them anymore than Russia is. Most of the smaller countries don't even have good enough missiles to deliver a warhead to the US. The thing we should be worried about is bombs being smuggled into the US and/or built here. I think this system will end up doing more harm than good.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective. Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'd argue that arms reductions don't work.
This is based on the Washington Naval Arms treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.
At the Washington Naval treaties, nations (USA, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany) were limited to a fixed ratio of warships in various classes of tonnage.
What resulted from the treaties were navies figuring out how to skirt the letter of the treaty. In the case of the United States and Japan, we turned crusiers and battleship hulls into aircraft carriers. In the case of France and the UK, they built alot of submarines. Germany built "Crusiers" that were actually battleships (Graf Spee, Bismarck, Tirpitz) and submarines.
In the end, the navies that followed the letter of the treaty the closest, were forced to come up with new doctrines and became much more powerful than the other nations navies. Those nations were the United States and Japan. Even though the US had a 5 ratio and Japan had a 3 ratio, through the first 6-12 months of the war, there was parity.
Arms Control, like Gun Control doesn't usually work.
I'd say that an arms race with China has been building for about 20 years. Just like the arms race with Russia from 1945-1989. China is on an expansion kick right now.
h tm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/spratly.
"The South China Sea region is the world's second busiest international sea lane. More than half of the world's supertanker traffic passes through the region's waters. In addition, the South China Sea region contains oil and gas resources strategically located near large energy-consuming countries"
China has laid claim to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, even though the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan claim the islands in toto, and Malaysia has laid claim to parts of the continental shelf.
China seeks to take back Taiwan by force, and took the Paracel islands from Vietnam by force in 1976. Not only would Chinese assaults on Taiwan ruin semiconductor and other computer manufacture for years, it would force the United States to act, this isn't something that's come up since W. Bush became President, Clinton sent 2 carrier battle groups to Taiwan in 1995.
A missile defense system such as the one Bush is touting wouldn't do much against a massive strike by ex-Soviet missiles. So what's the point? Accidental launchs. False alarms. Right now the only counter measure against a nuclear missile strike is massive retaliation. A missile defense system gives us an alternative; if it's not a massive strike then try to shoot them down. Much better than mutually assured destruction IMHO.
The chances of the United States incorrectly detecting a strike, or an accidental launch are far greater than a honest-to-goodness launch, or someone smuggling in bombs.
That being said, smuggling bombs is not like smuggling cocaine. When you smuggle, you get caught; no way around it. With something like cocaine it's not a big deal; you have a lot of it, and you're not too concerned if the authorities in question know you're smuggling it. If you tried to smuggle in the amount of nuclear hardware to do any sort of significant (i.e. on the same scale as a massive missle attack) damage, someone will get caught. Losing the element of surprise, your plan is that much less reliable. Any military mind that considers this a good strategy is probably commanding little more than green plastic army men.
We have reason to fear a single terrorist selectively targeting a small area in the manner you suggest; it is unlikely WWIII will be started in this way however. Should I be proven wrong in the future, you are welcome to dance up and down on my fallout shelter and yell "I told you so!". As to the rest of your post; I find it paranoid and alarmist, and I completely agree.
--
If the world must be policed
Who appointed the government of the United States of America to police the world? I'm sure that U.S. citizens have better things to do at home than looking around for countries to blow up.
I would imagine that other "rogue nations" took note of Iraq mistakes, I'm looking at you North Korea. What would happen if North Korea decided to fire off a ballistic missle (sic) with a nuke to japan as payback for a lack of reperations (sic) at the end of WWII? Would the US be obligated to do a little tit for tat in defense of Japan?
You could rest assured that North Korea learned from Iraq's mistakes, not only from the military side, but also from the political and economical sides too. North Korea is already suffering a severe famine, a wrong move far less serious than a nuclear attack would only worsen their situation. Nuking Japan -again- will make the request for WWII reparations a moot point.
Imagine a show down over Taiwan. The unwillingness of the participants to go all the way to nuclear war, would protect our species. But the protection a highly reliable theater defense system would afford everyone the moment of pause and time to let diplomacy do its work.
Diplomacy will go out of the window after the first missile being shoot down "Look!! They dared to try to use nukes!! Let's crush them!"
Certainly the weapons systems to protect against theater ballistic missles are in violation of the treaty, but are probably nessecary. But what's the merit of a larger, and highly improbably "national shield" from ICBMs. Fair enough. With the swift proliferation of such weapons and technology, and the time frame crafting even a limited system requires, if its started now it might be too late. But it still has merit. While it may be easier to sneak one into the country, it is by no means certain.
Also, it's not certain that the U.S. will be attacked only by ballistic missiles.
Those problems are certainly being tackled, why the US got together with some of the other big kids on the block and tried to figure out a way to read everyone's mail. Certainly they seem concerned. While the intelligence services might not be perfect or even reliable, they are at least present.
You forget that the intelligence services are a part ot the state's bureaucracy, and a large bureaucracy has their own political agenda.
It also might serve people to remember that it wasn't that the USA thought Japan wasn't planning to attack Pearl Harbor its that everyone thought they couldn't (except the Japanese of course). The lessons the US military has put into play here have less to do with party politics than they do with old hard learned lessons coming into conflict with new ideals.
It's good that you bring this up. The proof of concept of Pearl Harbor's bombing was made by the British Royal Navy in the Italian port of Tarento, that ended with the destruction of the Italian fleet. And it's not like the U.S. government wasn't looking for a war, after selling warplanes to the British, helping to shink the Bismark, stockpiling weapons, freezing the bank accounts of Japanese citizens in the U.S., etc. Plus the contempt for the lives of the servicemen shown by Roosevelt, to let his own men die in Pearl Harbor just for his political agenda's sake, he wasn't better than Stalin or Hitler in that department.
That said, traditionally, large government programs such as this have often spured enormous engineering advancements who's ancillary benefits have greatly enriched the 1st. world countries.
A very good point, but it's dubious that the benefits will outweigh the downsides.
For the record, W's friends aren't in the military, they're in the Oil industry.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Signing autographs as the doctor Strangelove, I suppose =))
:( This behavior made sense before the UN, but now? Certainly, today the UN does a shitty job, but the job could be easier and/or better done if the most important country in the world backed their efforts, couldn't it be?
"The US certainly did pick the job of Cop Of The World(TM)"
That's the problem, that they behaved like the cop of America and, from 1940's, like the cop of the world
I completely agree that the Japanese leadership was foolish about the US oil, among many, many other things. The similitude between Tarento and Pearl Harbor was that both ports were supposed to be too strong that attacking them was impossible, but in Pearl Harbor's case, the most advanced and bigger ships like the carriers weren't there at the time of the attack, a lucky coincidence?
"The mission of any large bureaucracy is to cover its ass. They just want to avoid being blamed. A foreign power blowing anything up in the US gets people asking what the hell people paid to stop that sort of thing get paid for."
You're right again, and this NMD thing looks more like an ass covering than to be doing really something about it, but a theater defense system is not a bad idea after all. I stand corrected.
About the big political parties in the US, it's sad to see the American democracy rendered to be useless by those parties and the lack of interest by the American citizens in their own country. The freedom of expression is (was?) the true source of the United State's wealth.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Actually, the use of shooting small, fast moving objects out of the sky is a heck of a lot more important than you're giving him credit for. It's billed as an ICBM defense initiative. It's the same technology that would allow us to possible change the path of large fast moving objects traveling toward earth. And maybe some other important uses that I'm not brilliant enough to think of.
Inconceivable!
Technically, it is not the star wars program, but son of star wars... minor clarification
Inconceivable!
Face it, when Saddan Hussein, dying of cancer, thinks that nuking the US or Israel will make him one with Allah... this is a person who is not going to fear any reprucussions from the USA. Such a person is likely to have a very few missiles, and quite likely only one or two. An ABM system would be of immense benefit here, yes? Now if Russia launches 1500 missiles at the US, we're pretty much fucked no matter what.
This will never work as a missile defense shield.
Right now we can barely manage to shoot down single missiles in optimal conditions. In a nuclear war with Russia there would be thousands of incomming missiles masked by tens of thousands of decoy missiles with dummy warheads. In this scenario you couldn't just have a system that was 99% reliable.
I think the real purpose of the Star Wars project is to develop and test weapons for use in space.
The Air Force's mission statement for 2020 include domination of space as a goal. The scramjet actually has a good chance of working. And the technology from the missile defense shield would give the US a huge leg up in any space based armed conflict.
It's hard to shoot down missiles when you've got 45 minutes to aim. But if you've got 2 months to aim, or move the whole target out of the way, you'll have a pretty good chance.
How about shooting down enemy satelites?
Or breaking the Bogota convention and putting a few of you own nukes up there? That would drop you delivery time down to a few minutes.
Does Saddam have *any* missles capable of reaching the US? No. Has he ever had such missles? No. Are missles from Iraq a threat to the US? No. Do we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending against missles from Iraq? No.
I thought lead is what you'd need to stop gamma rays. The material of a normal suitcase should be enough to stop alpha rays. Of course, the required level of shielding depends on the level of radiation as well as its type, so maybe lead would be necessary here.
Erm, no we've never relied on US protection, that's a tad revisionist. Since the 50s the UK had it's own nuclear deterent, and while allying with such a powerful nation definitely has security advantages it wasn't a case of a defenceless island cuddling up to the US for help. :-)
We merely cuddled up with our own nukes.
Personally I don't care what the US does with NMD within its own borders. As long as we're not made into a sitting duck target with British-based installations listening for missiles then that is fine.
Else we get clobbered cheaply - does the US wish to start global nuclear war over us?
I dunno, 'rouge' is French for 'red' which to many people still conjures up images of people in those weird fur hats sitting around drinking vodka whilst plotting to overthrow the US. :-)
You're misrepresenting my major point about the bases. The other point is historical and I have more important concerns anyway but the point about NMD bases on UK soil is very important.
When US nukes came onto British soil people were upset about it making us a target but now the game has changed. Then there was clearly a very strong case to be made for nukes coming onto our soil. We were part of NATO and we had a major enemy in the form of the Warsaw pact about 1000 miles away.
Now we are in a post-Cold War era and the UK is no longer under threat in the way it was.
I do not know of any plans to protect the UK under NMD, and although this has been vaguely mooted clearly such protection would be limited at best.
It is not in the interests of the US to bother protecting the UK. I don't ask that it does, either. What I do ask is that we are not made a weak link in the NMD chain by having listening stations on our soil.
China - These guys are the only REAL nucleat power left other than the US - ICBM's and well mainitained - huge conventional forces HOWEVER China is the least likely to use the weapons as it doesnt fit with their national Psyche or their view of the world - they are by tradition a defensive nation and thus these weapons are seen as defensive only.
When the Chinese Communist leadership is up against the wall, are you sure they wouldn't risk it? If Taiwan declares independence (same thing), and the US decides to provide defense for Taiwan, are you sure they wouldn't risk it?
Another cynical thought - Star Wars #1 took out the USSR Communists, maybe Star Wars #2 will take out the Chinese Communists...
a Missle Defense System that will be based off of a network of airborne 747 jumbo jets in similar to that in Real Genius with Val Kilmer.
Hmmm...I wonder if that could be used to vaporize human-sized targets? Fidel? Sadam? Barney?
You think forcing China to build lots of nukes in order to slow down their economy is a good thing? Exactly what kind of crack did you say you were on?
*Did* Mao nuke India? No.
Seriously, even madmen have a goal: to maintain their power--that's what gets them off. Living the rest of your days in some underground bunker with a few hundred generals does NOT fulfil this goal adequately. Really, MAD is the only reasonable way to stop nuclear war.
Dunno, doesn't seem all that likely to *me*. Even for Russia.
Are there idiots and dupes in the world? Yes. Is everyone a robot under the control of an enormous conspiracy to enslave the world? Come on.
By the way, I:
But hey, I'm just a drooling "Merkin" under the control of the Illuminati--what do I know?
Russia can develop countermeasures to Star Wars, meaning decoys and chaff for their ICBMs. If they are smart, however (and I believe they are), they will keep these to themselves.
Other countries are fscked, however. Saddam isn't going to have a suitcase nuke any time soon. That takes too much effort, with the Israelis ready to repeat 1982 and the US patroling the air. He'll be lucky to build a truck nuke, which is not as easy to bring into Canada, let alone across the border to a population center, with the FBI and assorted other spooks working exactly to prepare for such an event..
The same applies to ICBMs. Saddam can't add chaff countermeasures or anything else to his ICBMs (if he gets any), because his nukes will still be too large. Now, keep in mind that if Saddam, or Osama, or Moamar, or whatever next lunatic comes around (unpleasant thought of the day - what if Pakistan is taken over by someone madder than Musharaf?), is able to nuke the US and gain something by it, he will. So while Star Wars cannot protect against Pissed-Off Putin, it can protect against tinpot dictators.
I don't think anyone is afraid of a "rouge state".
I'm stealing this quote without giving credit; if someone knows the author please post.
"How do you smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States? Simple, just hide it in a bale of Marijuana."
If a "rouge state" wanted to seriously screw with the US and the world they probably wouldn't even use a nuke, nuke's are so passe. Hire a russian biological warfare scientist and create a nice mutation of the flu then release the bug in the nearest large international airport. The last huge, deadly, flu epidemic (in the 30's???) killed more people than WWI and WWII combined. Lot's of death and no nuclear winter or radiation! Perfect for the aspiring terrorist.
Hmmm, let's see. There's the Russian Federation (lots of missiles, obviously). There's China (DF-5/CSS-4, range 13,000 km). There's India (Surya, range of 12,000 km). The other declared nuclear powers (Pakistan, France, UK, and Israel) have IRBM's only at the very most, according to publicly available information, and with one exception these are all allies of the United States. The three other powers which do have ICBM systems are unlikely to use them against the United States. The expense involved in an elaborate ICBM defense system is thus difficult to justify in this case. See the FAS Nuclear Forces Guide for more facts and figures regarding nuclear forces. They got informative pages on other weapons of mass destruction as well.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
...cause I'm going to need alot of cheap suitcases.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
The US has imprisoned the greatest percentage of its population of ANY NATION except for Russia. Seee the link I provided earlier. That includes many countries with no death penalties.
Missile attacks launched by GWB: none.
really.
If by some odd chance you meant China, then I need only point you to Taiwan.
You mean the country the US is sending missiles to? And when did China last attack taiwan? And when did China even acknowlege that Taiwan is NOT a part of China?
Those that lead the human rights commission: China, Cuba, Libya, Syria, and most recently Sudan.
yes, ironic isn't it. It's almost as if the world is trying to send the US a message.
The person who posted the original statement works with a particle accelerator. Unless you have similar credentials, I'm going to have to take his word over yours.
As has been pointed out several times, "high yield" is a relative term. That the poster works at a particle accellerator (sweeping the floors?) is irrelevant to the fact that a nuclear explosion in times square will do significant damage.
For the slow people in the class, I believe the original post was pointing out the world's previous attempts to appease a totalitarian regime. They didn't quite work out.
Uh, Neville Chamberlain would be a good example of this. The Olympics? No. Its an example of propoganda thwarted in an international forum.
Any idiot can post hyperlinks to other sites to pretend that they're backing up their claims. People who have something worthwhile to say put it in their own post, so people have a chance to rebut it.
Sorry. All those yucky facts. I should have just copy/pasted for hours? No, here's a nutty idea-- read the news. Then open your mouth. And no, I don't count Rush Limbaugh as news.
Have the guts to say what you believe and stand by it.
Ok, here it is without any links or direct support-- perhaps the way you'd prefer it:
George W. Bush is a simian idiot whose handlers are cowtowing to special interests including the energy and defense industries, thus putting global political stability and environmental health in danger.
if you'd like more details, see my previous post.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Ah yes, remind me...
Which country has a higher percentage of its population in prison?
Which administration is more likely to launch a missile attack? Which may or may not hit its target?
Or crash their secret spy plane, for that matter?
Which country recently lost its seat on the U.N. human rights committee?
In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.
Yes, that could never happen. With Russia being so stable and all.
the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America
No one ever gets anything past the Canadians.
suitcase nukes are low-yield.
Uhhhh... Yah.
After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).
This is Yes, you are absolutely right. Jesse Owens' televised humiliation of "Aryan superiority" having lead to WWII and all...
You have to understand that the Mutual Assured Destruction policies of the Cold War don't apply to unstable and fundamentalist regimes.
Hmm. Strange that the rest of the civilized world seems to disagree. Of course, I'm sure this is the only time that Bush would dare propose breaking an anti-nuke treaty. I mean, any guy who's cutting the EPA by 6.5% while giving an additional 13.6 billion to defense has his priorities totally straight. That, and his unbiased choices to head the EPA show that he isn't swayed by special interests. Which is why ultimately, other countries everywhere love and respect and cherish him and support his wise policies.
Don't let the facts stop you, though, Michael.
Yeah, whatever man.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The present ABM treaty has helped us assure some peace for the last 30 years.
Actually, the present ABM treaty has only prevented the US from developing anti-missile systems. The Soviets were violating it the whole time.
So it can hardly be credited with keeping the peace.
If you can argue that they are important for people (as opposed to imperialistic plutocrats and the military-industrial complex ) than why wouldnt America, as a memeber of the UN (or some other complete and inclusive agency) ask to have this system built and deployed the whole world over?
For the same reasons we don't deploy our Army in every country; it's incredibly expensive beyond the point of being possible, and because it's none of our goddamn business.
For 50 years, we've maintained nuclear peace by being able to thoroughly destroy anybody who attacked us. Now, we're beginning to make steps towards instead being able to defend against the destruction in the first place.
I don't think the average informed citizen of, say, Switzerland would rather we were able to destroy the world than shoot down some missiles.
And remember, the opposition to this system in the '60s was based on the (probably correct) premise that we couldn't shoot down every missile in a massive Soviet attack. That was the threat we faced back then.
The threat we face now is a North Korean attack involving a couple of missiles. A system that is only 1% effective is better than nothing in that case, and a system that is only 99% effective more than good enough for the job, AGAINST THAT LIMITED THREAT ONLY.
The argument against this defense (it'll result in people building more nukes) is the same kind of fuzzy thinking that argued that cops shouldn't wear bulletproof vests, because it'll lead to criminals buying armor piercing ammo. The actual result was nothing of the sort, because AP ammo is expensive. The same thing will guarantee that Iran, for instance, doesn't counter this by building a multi-trillion dollar massive nuclear capability; they just plain can't afford it.
-
Indeed, this isn't really about the current perceived threats, it's about future threats.
Does anyone seriously believed that the history of large-scale conflict is over, that all major nations will be nice to each other from now until forever?
Ah, but it's not as far out of the U.S.'s reach as it is out of other nations' reach.
I would prefer that the U.S. be as far ahead as possible in war-related technology. SDI seems like a stunningly expensive way to do that, unfortunately.
They shot a missle from one spot on earth, then shot an intercept missle at it from somewhere over a continent away. These missles are around 10-20 feet in diameter. The combined closing speed was thousands of miles per hour.
They managed to get one to hit the other. That's not luck, it's a tremendously difficult technical accomplishment.
An obvious target?? If any country launched an ICBM at the US, that country would be quite literally wiped off the face of the earth soon thereafter. No government will be stupid enough to do that. The true dangers are actions by terrorist guerilla groups who really don't care, and whose actions can't be stopped by something like Star Wars.
It's little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul, of course, is every politician's friend that stands to gain from this effort, and Peter is the lowly taxpayer. Bend over Peter, you're about to get screwed again by your Uncle.
The USA does not have to "break" the ABM treaty. See Article 15, Section 2 of the treaty. The text of the treaty can be found here. Either side can withdraw from the treaty after giving six months prior notice.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Complaints about US human rights abuses are nothing against the ones from China, so please, there is NO comparison.
Do remember that there is no freedom of religion, a real freedom of the press, and other things that are basic rights in China.
And let's not even get into the selling of organs mess going on down there.
- sigs are for wimps.
Remind me to invent a virus that could kill off all americans.. might be kinda hard though, with all the races involved. I'll look for genes containing self-centered, paranoid, arrogant and megalomanious behavior, that should do it.
A virus to kill all "Americans" ? What did Brazil , Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Mexico, Canada, and the rest of the Americas do to you ?
Anyways, you'll have a tough time getting your virus to work because we're not the Borg over here as you already noted on the racial front, but also on the opinions one too. Weird that you assume all or most people here have those traits ?
Were do you live, that everybody thinks and acts the same ? I want to steer away from your country !
- sigs are for wimps.
More to the point: an enemy ICBM launched toward the United States has a big, flaming return address stamped on it. Any nation foolhardy enough to attack in such a manner would, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist thirty minutes later.
That's true, but what if the leader doesn't care if all it's people get whiped out ?
Or even more plausible , what if a military "launch base" is taken over by a terrorist organization ? Sounds like a good way to hurt the US and wipe out an enemy country at the same time !
- sigs are for wimps.
Funny, I don't see the government shutting down the version of the presbiterian church that accepts homosexuality. Nor, shutting down the churches with openly gay ministers.
It's easy to throw accustations around, it's pretty hard to back them up though.
- sigs are for wimps.
Four Triomphant class submarines with 16 x M45 ICBMs each. This generation of submarines was commisionned in the mid 1990s.
Middle range ASMP cruise missiles that can be delivered by Mirage 2000D or carrier-based Super Etendard and Rafale aircraft
Have been decomissioned in the mid 1990s: -Silo-based S63 ICBMs (could only hit Russia).
- Hades mobile missiles (could only hit Germany if fired from French territory. A cold war souvenir.
Or even better - what if it's a terrorist group? If the IRA or the PLO claims responsibility, you can't just nuke Northern Ireland or Israel/Palestine. Terrorists like that have effectively a huge amount of civilian hostages against MAD.
All the "Star Wars" money would be a lot more effectively spent on nonproliferation activities to stop the problem at the source, IMHO.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Really? Even when the money could be better spent to provide worldwide nuclear security through enhanced nonproliferation agreements and tracking down "lost" Russian nuclear material? Picking off a few missiles is nice, but above a certain price point there are better alternatives.
And what about blue terrorists, or the purple ones?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
getting Country X's population reduced to single digits
How, exactly, do you track a suitcase nuke back to its country of origin after it's been denotated?
It would seem to me that you would need either:
a) for someone to claim responsibility (real dumb); or
b) to know it was coming
Contrast this with ICBMs, which will be picked up on radar at some point, and can easily be tracked back to their point of origin just by looking at their trajectory. (True, they could have been sea-launched, but the risk of being found out is considerably higher)
I agree with Michael; small surprise attacks are, imho, much more likely that an ICBM. On the other hand, I am biased - I dislike the entire idea of this defense system. Seems to me that other countries which find themselves no longer on an equal footing with America are going to take steps to redress the balance.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Another good thing about them is if they don't quite satisfy you in the way you were hoping there's a full money back guarantee.
I think they retail for about $26000.99. Great thing is when you buy one you get a whole ton of Canadian Tire money! I think the price is going down at Christmas though. Give like Santa, save like Scrooge. ;)
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
Here's an idea: Why not spend that money on health care and education? Those industries employ lots of people too!
The Military-Industrial Complex as a good thing becuase it employs people is such a load of crap! What you're talking about is welfare! You're giving people money, and the country recieves little benefit in return. (Have bigger penile-substitutes than other countries is not a good thing IMHO)
Every study ever done on the subject has shown that kids learn better when there are fewer of them per teacher. Lets hire teachers, doctors, nurses, and while we're at it, instead of spending $50 Billion on a system that *might* protect us, why not just give the money to the countries if they promise not to nuke us?
Reality has a liberal bias
No it isn't, you idiot. The WASHINGTON TIMES is owned by the moonies.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
This is easily verifiable by going to http://www.nypost.com/posthistory/37314.htm. Checking your fact is, of course, a feat beyond the capabilities of 99.5% of all /. posters.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
But it's not called 'Star Wars' as the /. editors seem to think. The Star Wars project was dropped years ago.
It's not Star Wars, and from what I recall, earlier tests failed, and the current one succeeded. That's why they are TESTS. You can only do so much in the lab, and in simulation.
IF earlier ones failed and current ones succeed, that means that the earlier tests achieved their purpose.
Scary? Kind of. But that IS what a permitier is for, no? To provide a margin of safety?
To define the edge of the controlled land?
Who smuggles drugs into Canada? Aside from the (legally obtained) airplane glue you've obviously been huffing, there are LOTS of drugs in canada. Aside from the marijuana, EVERYTHING is smuggled in. You don't see any poppy or coca fields, do you?
Booze is cheaper in the US; I fail to see why it would be smuggled from Canada.
Cigarettes are cheaper in the US; ditto.
Marijuana? Of course it's smuggled into the US... it's an export. That proves nothing.
I like the US and all, fine neighbor to have... however. Regarding this 'border' with Canada.
In all my travels, I have *never* had more hassle at a border than simply driving south into the US. Talk about getting grilled 'Why do you have that laptop? Are you coming down here to work? How do we know you aren't entering our country to work illegally?' 'Because I don't like it there'
I understand your problems with 'immigrants'. Forgive me if I have little sympathy; The US spends a great deal of effort telling the whole world what a great place of freedom and prosperity it is... is it any wonder you get people sneaking in? Now.. I'm not saying you should like it.. but on one hand, your contry tells the world to become American, and on the other hand, bitches about it.
I think part of the problem, forgive me, is that the assumption is that anyone crossing into the US must like the US better than where they are coming from, which may be true of some places, but certainly not Canada. Having travelled all over the world, I have never experienced as much hassle as I have visiting the Leader of the Free World. Just something to think about.
Yes, that's the attitude I was talking about.
I don't dislike the US; I think the US is, as a whole, a great nation.
Also, I'm glad you feel happy in living where you are, and that America is the best nation on earth. I feel the same way about my country, and I won't debate it; neither of us is wrong, we are both happy with where we are.
No, it's not your fault the US is a good place to live; the point I was making is, it's hypocritical to whine about illegals coming in when, at the same time, you encourage everyeone to be like you, move to the US, adopt your way of life. The US is not an innocent bystander in this.
ANd what do you mean by that nafta comment? I don't understand.
Cut the "Islamic EXtremist" bullshit.
Saddam invaded Kuwait for one thing, P-E-T-R-O-L.
The problem "Islamic Extremists" have with the US is their support of the Jews in Isreal w.r.t their "Settlement activity" and to a lesser extent the numerous US military bases scatteren in the middle east.
Read up on the conversation on kuro5hin.org about Osma Bin Laden.
What I find amusing in all this complaining that National Missile Defense isn't achievable, people keep citing these last four tests of the EKV for their proof. Never mind that the two times the tests failed, it was because the old-tech rockets had failures. Every time the kill vehicle was properly separated from is rocket, it has successfully idenified and tracked its targets.
Admittedly, the system can't work if the delivery rockets keep breaking, but the hard stuff that everyone says can't be done, has worked flawlessly in every test so far.
We tried that in Europe, just before WorldWarII. The result was that one modern, well armed and organised army ran over all other states' armies.
You may not like it, but when someone decides to threaten you, your only option is to be able to hit him where it hurts, and have him now that you can.
That said, I don't think an arms race will cut it against fundamentalistic islamic states. Hit them where it hurts isn't just killing them. They would consider themselves martyrs and double their efforts (well, not those you killed, but others).
----------------------------------------------
the pun is mightier than the sword
Locks keep the honest people out....
It was a joke. Locks are essentially useless on cars. If they want in, they'll get in. Jeez....
Oh, the planet will be just fine. Us, on the other hand...
heh heh! Yeah, we Americans are really really stupid! You said it! We love nothing more than being mocked as stupid, militaristic television leeches by people whose only experience with the US comes through their TV! hah!
Really, now. I assume you're in the UK - do you ph34r the US? Does it seem remotely likely that you'll be 'under US control' anytime soon? Do you think that the US is building up forces to invade Sweden? Do you think that Canada will be under the oppressive imperialist evil of everybody's favorite punching bag?
It may be very difficult for you to think about, but there are some people here who get pissed off when the US knocks off some South American dictator and installs their own despot. There are some people here who think that a socialized health care system might not be a bad idea. There are some people here who are getting really fucking sick of every other nation railing against us as uncultured, barbaric conqueror-wannabes, especially those of us who sometimes disagree with the actions take by our government.
So I'm saying to ignore the actions of the US, and not to make your opinion known? No. I'm saying that you're not making any friends by 'forwarding the motion' to ban America. It just makes you look whiny. Make a valid criticism, make suggestions, even maybe do some research and find out what it's like to live here - probably not much different than where you're at. Just don't expect that you'll make any friends or change any minds with half-assed ridicule.
--
does Michael honestly believe that other countries DON'T have strategic ballistic missles
Actually, they dont.
Not yet, but soon, for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and lots of other fun-loving dictatorships out there.
Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one?
If nobody is planning to launch nukes at the US or build ICBMs capable of hitting the US, why do they care if the US has an ABM system? The US isn't starting an arms race--they're trying to win the one everybody is already in. China already has 20 or so nukes pointed at the US. What more do you need to realize we're already in an arms race, a few mushroom clouds?
If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes
Suitcase nukes are hard to make, and harder to smuggle than you might think (please see my other post for details).
Oh, sure, plutonium and uranium decay by alpha decay, but they both still produce gamma rays during the decay process. Look it up...
Also, it takes a lot of lead to stop all the gamma (and lead is fucking heavy).
Thank you for supporting me in this debate. I haven't had time to step in until now, and it's nice to have some support once in a while.
;-)
I sincerely doubt that particle accelerator lab custodians are being instructed in the finer points of fissionable material detection.
Actually, they do train custodians if they're working in potentially high-radiation areas, but I'm not a custodian. I'm a senior undergraduate student in combined honours physics and computer science, currently working at a particle accelerator for the summer. I'm conducting an experiment to do range straggling measurements of Lithium-8 in various metallic films. Results will be used to determine the London penetration depth of various superconductors... Of course, that's getting off-topic.
Somebody else said that plutonium and uranium decay by alpha decay, and therefore wouldn't produce any gamma rays to detect. While it is true that they decay by emission of alpha particles, they (and all other alpha decays) also produce gamma rays. We could detect those through the walls of a truck or shipping container, and possibly even through the walls of a cargo ship, with the kind of detectors I mentioned earlier. Heck, it might even be possible to detect the kind of near-critical arrangement of fissionable material you find in a bomb from satellite, although I don't know. It would certainly have a distinctive signature, with short bursts of intense activity (near-critical produces chains of fission reactions that peter out eventually, instead of increasing exponentially as in a supercritical system).
China is afraid of NMD because: [snip]
Yes, yes, thank you for explaining this to these people. Of course, I'm sure they think it's bad that the US would be able to intervene to protect Taiwan from a Communist China attack... Damn Imperialists, trying to protect those evil people struggling for democracy from the kind and benevolent communists.
As for the Human Rights Commission
Yes, another good point. Why does anybody care any more? The UN is masturbation for Euroweenies who think they matter. If Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission, it's pretty useless.
...to build a suitcase bomb and smuggle it in to the US, why hasn't anybody done it? I suspect it's actually quite hard to find the people with the technical know-how to machine the parts (not many people want to work with stuff as toxic as plutonium), build the ultra-fast electronics needed to control detonation, and figure out the physics. I also suspect that the CIA, et al, do a better job than we know at stopping terrorist groups trying to pull that kind of shit.
I'm going to agree with you about one point--the kinetic kill idea is silly. It's much easier to get close to a moving target than it is to hit it, and using nuclear-tipped interceptors is the easiest and most reliable way to do that. Remember that, in a nuclear missile attack, it's better to have a very small nuke explode 300 miles above your continent than a big one explode in your cities. I imagine the nuclear-tipped interceptor idea was killed because it was politically unpopular or not "green" enough or something like that. It's possible the current test result was faked to cover up that the kinetic-kill idea is stupid, but unlikely.
On the other hand, hitting something with a laser (i.e., the MIRACL airborne theatre missile defense system) isn't quite so hard, and actually sounds like it might be a good idea. I did some calculations a while back, and it seems quite possible for a laser of MIRACL's power to damage and destroy an ICBM (sorry, I'm too tired to dig up a link to my old post where I do the calcs).
In order to "work," it must intercept 100% of the incoming targets. If 1, or 5, or 100 nukes are launched at Washington DC, only 1 needs to get through
The system, as currently invisioned, is designed to work agains small attacks of one or a few ICBMs, and would involve multiple interceptors being launched against each ICBM. The capability to deal with large attacks would require an upgrade (pretty much only Russia has enough nukes to launch an attack large enough to overwhelm the system).
prevention is much more effective than interception
Prevention, in many of these cases, would mean a pre-emptive strike, or a conventional war before the country gains nuclear capability. Otherwise, you have no guarantees. Please explain to me how else the US could convince North Korea or Iran not to develop ICBMs.
This whole fucking mess is just one monstrous pork-barrel: it can't work, it won't work, it'll never be finished
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
They're our bombs and we'll do whatever the hell we want, treaties be damned.
The US is not breaking the ABM treaty. Either party is legally allowed to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice. IMHO, the US government is doing exactly what it's supposed to--take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens from foreign powers. If the foreign powers don't like it, that's too bad, because they won't be able to do much about it.
I know somebody is going to pull out the "suitcase nuke" excuse. Read my other post to see why it's not so simple.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:
protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have
China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.
Then there's North Korea, which is quite close to developing the ICBM technology to hit the US with nukes or biological or chemical warfare.
Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.
when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke
First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.
Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.
Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.
Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).
When you could just "stumble" upon one of the 100+ that Russia has "lost".
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
What I don't buy is that some country is gonna buy the stuff to build a nuke or buy a nuke outright and launch it at us. See, these guys don't have a problem sending some of their people out to die to take a whack at us. But if it was their entire country, and with it their way of life, religion, etc. on the line, even the biggest nuts wouldn't be able to come up with a reason to do it. What we should be fearing is the smaller weapons smuggled that could be smuggled in.
No military will have a problem finding people for kamikazi missions. Especially if they having a good chance of being militarily decisive.
A missile attack on the US would be rather in effective at preventing their being able to fight a war. (As well as giving a rather obvious target for a retaliation strike.) A nuclear truck bomb carries a significent possibility of killing most military and civilian leaders.
If a "rouge state" wanted to seriously screw with the US and the world they probably wouldn't even use a nuke, nuke's are so passe. Hire a russian biological warfare scientist and create a nice mutation of the flu then release the bug in the nearest large international airport.
You can't confine to a specific target though. Doing this would create a global pandemic. Also it's too slow to ensure that you get the people you really want to get. Blowing up Washington DC is far more effective.
The last huge, deadly, flu epidemic (in the 30's???) killed more people than WWI and WWII combined. Lot's of death and no nuclear winter or radiation!
You need quite a lot of nukes to create a nuclear winter, viral fallout is a lot nastier than what you'd get from a nuclear groundburst too.
Hey, why not build the nuke to *fill* the back of a van? That would give you loads of room for perhaps up to 50kt yield!
As well as being very hard to detect before it went off. Nor would it leave much in the way of forensic evidence.
My point, however, since you seem to have missed it, is even a 4-10km area of damage would not justify the expense and risk of building and smuggling the bomb.
Depends what (or more likely who) is in that area.
If you are going to risk the ire of the US, you want to see a whole city bite it, not a couple of neighbourhoods.
If you pull it off then the risk probably isn't that high.
Worst case, the person transporting gets caught and killed and you lose your nuclear payload.
In which case put some kind of "dead man's switch" on the bomb.
Actually, what would really happen is that after being caught at the border with explosives, you would be ushered through a swift trial.
Depends if they are carrying explosives or an actual bomb.
If the latter how do you have a trial for someone who blew themselves to bits?
A single nuke in a suitcase is a minor attack. While it might kill hundreds of millions, it won't wipe out the country.
But might do a good job of wiping out government...
There is a big difference to using a nuke in the modern world and using a nuke when you are the only one who has one. The US used its first nukes to end a war that would have cost millions of Japenese and American lives. Since no one else had nukes at the time, there was no great danger in using them.
If you use one today, there are a great deal more problems to deal with. Now there are many countries with nuclear weapons, and if they are used then the world will be set back into a pre-industrialized era.
So the fact that the US has used nuclear weapons in the past is not relevant at all. So what is your reason that you think only America would use nuclear weapons?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
So because a defense system wouldn't protect against EVERY threat, we shouldn't build any defense systems to protect against ANY threats? This is logic? Please explain.
On the contrary- Saddam Hussein thought he had the tacit approval of the entire world to invade Kuwait, thanks to some vague language employed by our ambassador to Iraq at the time (April Glaspie).
He was surprised when we got all hot and bothered about what he considered to be a local dispute.
More to the point: an enemy ICBM launched toward the United States has a big, flaming return address stamped on it. Any nation foolhardy enough to attack in such a manner would, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist thirty minutes later.
Even the most hardcore nutjob is likely to think twice in that situation. Most attacks against United States property and citizens come in the form of guerilla, surprise terrorist attacks... why should a nuclear attack be any different?
Missile defense is resources misspent in a manner that's just going to piss off our nuclear peers (Russia and China) and fail to address the real threat of terrorist nuclear attacks.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
Yeah, but so does little Bobby in downtown Detroit. If he nukes France (and I hope he does!), is France going to retaliate against Washington D.C.? Or perhaps France should have some sort of missile defense that could knock out a stray shot from a rogue state or individual, yet would utterly fail against a concentrated attack of dozens of such missiles?
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Guess that's what I get for not previewing! Damn dropdown box... yeah... that's it... it was the dropdown box's fault! Why should I take responsibility for my own actions when it's so easy to blame something else :-)
You are correct sir! Hah!
I'm not sure what else I could have done to screw up that reply. Not only did I forget to turn on html, but I corrected a spelling error with another spelling error.... guess that's what I get for posting at 6am.
If a "rouge state" wanted to seriously screw...
You meant <b>"rougue state"</b> right?
"Lots and lots of people are making lots and lots of money off this plan"
Is that so bad? What about the thousands that are employed by the companies building these things? Many companies and people depend on projects like this to keep them in business and alive. It's just tax dollars coming back into peoples paychecks.
For what it's worth, I understood ErikZ's question right off. You're reading comprehension apparently isn't worth half your namesake.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Well people are already locked into poverty without welfare - welfare doesn't change anything to that, it just makes poverty easier to live with.
Or are you one of those morroons who think the guys serving fries at McDonald will become a CEO somedays ? Do you know how many people work in restaurants, and how many CEO there are ?
When you can write in my language as well as I write in yours, you'll be allowed to complain.
I find it offensive when you suggest that if people are going to live in poverty anyway, it's better for them to live on welfare than work.
I never said so - I said that it won't magically make jobless people get a job. For one removing welfare doesn't create jobs, for two many people are just not fit to handle a job. Even McDonalds has productivity standards that many people in their 50s or above can't stick to (heck just look at the average age of people who work there).
What we should be doing is trying to improve the standard of living of those who do work, not encourage them not to work.
I agree with that - but people who oppose welfare (in other words most Repubicans) want to destroy it, not make the life of those who work on low paying jobs better (have yet to see the Republicans support raising the minimum wage by a significant value).
Actually, I suspect this would make the world a little safer. If a nation decides to throw nukes at us, we don't have to blow them to bits, as long as we can take care of the nukes.
If some small country sent a nuke our way now, it's not a matter of just blowing them up. We'd have to blow them up AND everyone they have a treaty with who also has a nuke. Think Iraq/Russia.
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
They may not have those ICBMs now, but once we break the ABM treaty, they'll have no reason not to start accumulating them.
Of course, now that we've elected two Texans to the executive branch, it could be argued that we're a new nation and treaties the United States of America signed don't apply to us. Welcome to the Republic of Texas!
Don't laugh.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Yeah, which reminds me - we've had the ability to do that (nuclear-tipped interceptors) for well over 30 years, using all-analog/mechanical computers, but with an accuracy measurable in feet at ranges of 50+ miles and speeds over Mach 3.
The target at the time was enemy bombers, either alone or in formation. Nike Hercules was also capable of taking out short-range ballistic missiles. The successor programme (Nike Zeus / Spartan) was designed to take out long-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicles at high-altitude. (OK, that still doesn't solve the decoy problem, but hell, it was 1959, give the engineers a break, willya? ;-)
Geeks in the SF Bay Area with an eye for military history could do with a trip to the Nike Missile Base - Site SF-88 in the Marin headlands. SF-88 is our last such base - it's the one we were allowed to keep as a historical site when we signed SALT I, and has recently been restored by an army of dedicated volunteers. Not only is the surrounding scenery beautiful, but the people conducting the tours of the facility are often the ones doing the restoration -- and therefore, they know the technology inside-out. It's amazing what you can do with some gears, potentiometers, and vacuum tubes when you put a few thousand IQ points behind it. (These guys are "hackers", even if their computers happen to use all the values between the "1" and "0" we're used to ;-)
Anyways - given the ABM technology we already had in the 50s and 60s, I also find it hard to believe that, after an additional 40 years of R&D on both rocket motor technology and computers/guidance, we can't come up with a "close enough" solution today.
Kinetic kill is a damn cool idea (read: geek appeal), but if I were really worried about a ballistic missile threat, I'd settle for "close". If close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nukes, then fine - put a nuke in the tip of the interceptor and be done with it.
(Though, I suppose in defence of the kinetic kill folks, there'd be a horrible political price to pay for shooting down a decoy missile with a nuke at high altitude, so our adversaries would only have to lob decoys, one at a time, while we shot them down and had to clean up the mess from the EMP (possibly) and the mobs of greens rioting in the streets (definitely!). Hell, maybe that prospect is enough of a justification mandate kinetic kill all by itself ;-)
"the rest of the world is watching the United States VERY SPECIFICALLY break an international treaty that has managed to keep us from nuclear war for 25 years.... "
Faulty logic.
I believe the this was actually mentioned in the Simpsons.
Lisa "I have this magic rock that keeps away tigers"
Homer "That rock keeps away tigers?"
Lisa "You don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer "I'll pay you five dollars for that rock!"
Lisa "Dad, it was just an example..."
Homer "Ten Dollars!"
Lisa (sigh)
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
What? you still don't get it?
How hard would it be for a nuclear/biological missile to not travel in a straight line and still hit it's target?
You seem to think it's impossible. I say add a few tiny motors and some fins and your interception missle will miss every time.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I hate repeating myself, so I get rude because I find that when people don't understand my posts, they are too lazy to read the whole thing. I would of been happy to email you for a normal discussion, but alas, you have no email address.
Ok, were you REALLY trying to point out a flaw with my plan? Congratulations, doesn't failure feel good?
Telling me the state of current missile hardware does me no good when I ask a question about possible future hardware.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
That's odd. My email is all over the place and I don't get email from obnoxious assholes. Oh wait, maybe if you consider normal thinking people to be obnoxious assholes, then I see your point. The reason you don't give out your email address is because you set people off. My writing skills have lead to thoughtful discussions on this and other boards. Your writing skills have caused you to hide your email address.
You still haven't added anything to my original question, yet you make sure to add as much inflammatory remarks in your post as possible.
Last word? Oh please, I figured out reverse psychology as a kid.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Woo, great. The thing is damn near useless. Why?
How hard would it be to get your attacking missle to "Jink". Which is, to not travel in a straight line.
We need explosive interception, not direct impact.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
There's a bit in "1984" about how it works... can't remember how it goes though.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
As he said, ship the parts and assemble at sea. How many ports can they watch? All the ports of our rivals and allies and "strategic partners"? (Saudi Arabia? Oman? India?) How closely do you think China or Russia let us watch their ports. (The shipment wouldn't come from the Russian gov't. But a terrorist group could use an out of the way port in Russia to assemble a deadly cargo.)
And if US intelligence is so vigilant and accurate as to block that by preventing the shipment of nuclear components, then there's not much risk that anyone will be able to put together a warhead atop an ICBM.
By this reasoning development of the telephone, light bulb, and computer should have harmed the economy. You're using the broken window fallacy, which says that deliberately breaking a window is good for the economy, because then somebody gets paid to fix it. The error is that the window not been broken, the money used to fix it would have been spent on something more productive. Likewise, if we develop cheaper energy, maybe it will hurt Enron's profits for awhile, but all the money that consumers save would be spent more productively and would benefit the overall economy.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
nations that have missiles aren't likely to use them anymore than Russia is
But they are equally likely to threaten to use them, just as Russia has and, yes, does (as does China).
People who give the "suitcase bomb" argument just don't understand the politics of nuclear weapons. It takes the resources of a nation-state to make them, and at that point, they don't want it wasted on terrorism when they can suddenly make the leap to The Club, and gain the respect that Russia got. Do you think that anyone would pay attention to Russia right now if they didn't have nukes? They are a bananna republic with bombs (yes, I've been there, yes, I speak the language). So a power would indeed threaten to use them--and if the U.S. only lost one city, do you think that world opinion would support the genocide of an entire nation in response? What did the women and children of that country do to merit death, especially when we have not been totally destroyed?
And what U.S. politician would, absent a missile defense, be willing to call the bluff of someone who could remove a million or more voters? The U.S. was nearly paralyzed by the thought of biological weapons in Iraq--had they a demonstrated working nuke, public opinion would have never supported intervention.
By your logic, China can't threaten us now, so nothing changes for them. Russia can overwhelm the system easily. So what changes except for wannabe states? You'd think some people are just wanting to die in a nuclear blast.
"The best way to detonate a nuclear warhead in a major metropolitan area of the United States is to smuggle it across the Canadian border in the back of a pickup truck..."
"...Preferably concealed inside a bale of marijuana."
Wah!
Wah!
Wah!
Wah!
But at least you're being open minded about new technologies right?
-Sokie
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
...when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke.
This is more serious than you would think. I've been stationed at military bases all over the world, and on many occasions seen cars abandoned for days outside of military perimeter fences without being visited once by military police.
Not a very comforting thought, is it?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, the original ABM Treaty had a provision which allowed both the USA and USSR to deploy one battery of ABMs.
The US deployed the Safeguard/Spartan system around ICBM silos in the Midwest.
The USSR system was known as GALOSH and was deployed as a ring around Moscow, 64 missiles at first, later expanded to 100 under the 1982 treaty.
The supposed Soviet violation was the construction of a large phased-array radar complex near the Bering Strait, far from the Moscow ABM ring. This system is similar to the PAVE PAWS at Otis AFB and Shemya.
(Source: Jane's Weapon Systems 1985-86)
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I think he means rogue
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
India and Pakistan haven't been in a conventional war since 1965. If you wish, the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh *may* be considered to be conventional war, but definitely not after that.
Pakistan is attempting to bleed India to death by sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. they have been trying this from ~1989.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Next time, I hope we elect a president who is smart enough to run the country, and not just sell it to the highest bidder.
Uh... we did.
If any of these rogue countries like Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea ever did get the balls to launch a nuclear missile at us, they have to know that their life is over.
What if they don't care? The missles will be here in 20 minutes. That is barely any time to research it.
I think what he was saying is that if 100 missiles were launched at ONE CITY (e.g. DC), and only 1 got through, that's all it would take to destroy the city. 100% effectiveness.
Fallout from one missle would be much better than fallout from 100 missles for the people in areas not hit. Besides it might accidentally take out all of the missles.
The thing we should be worried about is bombs being smuggled into the US and/or built here.
I bet anything the U.S. government worries about this as well.
One wonders what happens to the fissible materials in the bomb. Plutonium is some pretty nasty stuff and I don't know how much better off we'd be with hundreds to thousands of kilograms of plutonium dust released in the upper atmosphere.
That is a good question. There might be risk involved, but it would be better than fallout. A scientist would be a better source of information.
I'd go with cruise missles which the NMD does not address.
The navy has some pretty cool weapons for intercepting cruise missles. I saw it on Discovery or TLC. It was a ship-mounted laser which could take out missles pretty easily.
I am a troll because I partially agreed with him. Sheesh!
Thank you for showing everyone why the rest of the world hates the US.
I did not state that the U.S. was good for ignoring other countries opinions. I just explained why many people don't care any more.
Like the US likes to continuously blame China?
For what? The aircraft incident? I have not seen anyone in the U.S. burn the flags of other countries.
Maybe you should try looking at your arguments from another persons perspective, and you'd realise how insulting they are to non-americans, not that you'd care.
I always do. I have relatives in Japan and Taiwan.
Remember again that my comment was an analysis of the hate attacks by many countries against the U.S. and how people here are reacting to decades of it. That fact does not represent how I act or feel towards others.
Your comment on the other hand does show a lack of wisdom that I hope will grow with age.
No, you said the rest of the world has a lack of wisdom.
My comment was in response to this comment: (as if the rest of the world didn't hate the US enough already). I just used his comment of "rest of the world". Whatever he is referring as the "rest of the world", I was responding. Since I do not know the exact context of his reference, I used it to represent the "rest of the world" that hates the U.S.
The rogue nation theory is FUD and W knows it.
;)
And Iraq didn't invade Kuwait. They knew full well that most (if not all) countries in their area as well as countries dependent on oil (i.e., U.S.) would be very unhappy about it. Heck, some might even retaliate.
(as if the rest of the world didn't hate the US enough already)
This is the rest of the world's lack of wisdom. If you continuously blame someone (or some country), they will end of not caring about your opinion. If no matter what I do, I get yelled at, I will just do whatever I want to do.
Except for W's friends in the military.
He did not make very many just after the election. Remember that he was talking about increases in pay but not about the bases and such. The top brass did not seem happy during his speech.
So am I short-sighted?
:)
How many fingers am I holding up?
The last SDI helped in many other areas of technology as I recall. I believe some it made it into medical advancements. It was mentioned in some Discovery or TLC program. I bet some of it went into NASA projects as well as aerospace technologies.
Any scientist or engineer worth his/her salt laughed at the Strategic Defense Initiative when Reagan suggested it, and they continue to laugh now.
I guess the doctors are laughing at them now as they help people with the failure.
When we have the technology, and the need, to develop this, I will favor it. For now, though, it's a complete waste.
With the missle technology Clinton sold to China who knows who holds the ability to build and launch a few ICBM's. The question becomes when would be the right time to develop this. It certainly must be before a threat arises.
The major goals are to protect the US against a
rogue nation &/or accidental launch. I wonder
if Michael thinks his prayers will bring either
one of those missiles down should the event occur?
Does he really think that security of missile
facilities overseas is so good that the probability
of this happening is 0? Is he that tight
with the N. Koreans to think they (or Iraq or Iran)
might not be crazy enough to luanch one?
(Ooooops! We made a mistake sorry about that!)
Why are you assuming a full retaliation is certain?
Do you think Willy would have had the
balls to nuke Iran (oil supply, major fallout on
Russia, India, etc). Simply put - this Michael
character is an naive and a troll.
If they came to your home and personally told you
it was only intended to stop a handful of missiles
at most would you still contend we are attempting
a system to shoot down all of russias nukes?
If I wanted to read under-informed/-thought-out, left-leaning military commentary, there are a gagillion (that's a 1 followed by a bazillion zeros) other sites to go to instead.
The threat from hand-carried nukes is less than that from missile-based ones if only in that we have to worry about fewer simultaneous carriers with the former.
And someone said "I'm pretty sure that this is just another way for the US government to justify its huge military budget and stimulate the economy by buying heaps of stuff" as if this end was a Bad Thing. Hint: We all live in "The Economy." It's not some ficticious ideal like "Good Universal Public Education under the current system," or "Canadian." It's real, and stimulating the economy, when that's called for, is Good for all Earthlings.
But that point begs the question that spending on an anti-missile defense system is worthless. I don't buy it: If we can develop a system that's even 20% effective against mid-launch ICBMs for less than a few hundred billion, we should go for it, IMO.
And, since we should mostly be here for the technology aspect of this all, let's hear some discussion on that.
Yours from one of the cities they'll protect with 5 or 10 of these puppies -
Jack
Freedom of religion, as long as you are not gay/lesbian and believe in christianity.
*elevator music plays*
"What's a few hundred million lives? We have many more."
-mao, 1972, when told what a nuclear war with India would cost his country (the answer was 263 million peasants).
If you believe that the leaders of other countries necessarily think the same as you on anything, much less on the concept of human rights or the value of a human life (or a million, or hundred million) you are too naive to bother talking to. You're betting millions of other peoples lives on the fact that no one, anywhere, will be brave enough, stupid ehough, incompetent or insane enough to push a button... when you don't necessarily even know what their concepts of bravery, stupidity, competence or sanity entails.
And if you think that finding a single submarine in the middle of a big ocean is trivial, maybe you could join the navy and show them how- because i doubt that they think it is. Even if you find it, you will very likely not be able to track it without destroying it- and once you've done that, how the hell will you know whose it was? Every submarine the chinese or north koreans own was built in a russian shipyard.
No, the only way to stop a rogue missile is with an effective interceptor. The simple fact that we have the capability of stopping such an attack would probably do more to halt nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states than anything else ever has.
We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
That's the whole point- to paraphrase a bad movie, I'm not afraid of the country with 10,000 nuclear warheads. I'm afraid of the country who has one, and decides to use it. And then we would watch it launch, sail across 15000 miles of ocean, utterly and completely helpless to stop it- and watch it explode over San Francisco or Seattle or Los Angeles. Sure, we could shoot back, and I'm sure we would; but that won't bring back the dead people. When an evil of that magnitude is so incredibly easy to prevent, not doing so would be evidence of absolute foolishness.
Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
It will halt proliferation because countries like North Korea will realize that having nuclear weapons does not give them any additional leverage. Nuclear weapon delivery systems cost a huge amount of money, and if they are not useful they won't be built.
I guess it won't do much to stop countries like India or Pakistan or Iraq, because those people would have their missiles pointed at places like israel, china, and each other. But it would keep them from pointing them at me, so I support the defense initiative.
I don't believe that terrorists hate the US because we have nuclear weapons, or because we are relatively free, or even because we don't sacrifice virgin goats to Allah. They hate us because we practice an interventionist foreign policy, which is another issue altogether (and not one I want to debate).
i agree that nuclear attack via greyhound bus would be much more practical- but such an attack requires a great deal more planning etc than simply pushing a button, and allows many opportunities to stop between conception and delivery. A missile is currently not stoppable by any means.
-Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
"Fallout from one missle would be much better than fallout from 100 missles for the people in areas not hit."
This makes me wonder about what precisely happens to the missle that has been intercepted. One wonders what happens to the fissible materials in the bomb. Plutonium is some pretty nasty stuff and I don't know how much better off we'd be with hundreds to thousands of kilograms of plutonium dust released in the upper atmosphere.
One other issue is this thing only addresses ICBM's. Saddam is stockpiling Sony ps2's for what? If I were a betting person, I'd go with cruise missles which the NMD does not address. Previous posters have already mentioned the type of scenario where some miscreant puts a nuke in a shipping container and steams it into New York harbor and then detonates it. I know if I was bent on nuking the U.S., a missle is the last thing I'd use.
We signed the ABM treaty with the Soviet Union. That country no longer exists. Treaty null and void.
I don't get moderators here. The above post expresses an opinion, and even attempts to justify the opinion. I disagree with the opinion. I think our government must invest in our defence. I also believe that the designers of the missle defence will take counter measures into account when they design the missle defense. As an example of this the test did include distingushing the warhead from a dummy. This is far from a test against serious countermeasures, but it's a start.
Point one: ... Iraq if they work really hard for a decade.
A few other countries have NUKES.
If you haven't noticed, a working missle defense isn't that easy to implement. We will still be working on getting the basics working for several years. How long before we get it working well and deployed. If Iraq is a little faster than the 10 years you're guessing, they may beat us there, and if we keep putting it off, then there will be a number of rougue states with the ability to attack us with missles. Iraq calls the US the Great Satan, they don't like us very much, and we've proven in the past that when they provoke us we bite back, but not that hard, they always survive to bite us again.
Point Two: Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one? A suicide bomber is one thing: you lose one guy and you blame it on a sect you can't control. But launching a missile? In 45 minutes, the US turns every city you have into a nuclear wasteland.
Do you really think the US would waste every major city of a foreign country? The radiation would likely kill millions in neighboring countries. We could never nuke anything near Jeresulem, the world would neve forgive us. Do you think we really want a radioactive Persian Gulf. The US can make threats, but can they back them up? A neclear counterstrike isn't a very practical thing, and that makes it questionable if we would do it. The US may just go after some of the leaders of that govenment or militant group, capture them if they can, and imprision them for life for crimes against humanity. Many of these people are zealots who would consider that an exceptable price for the holy war they are wageing agains the Great Setan (USA).
Point Three. If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes - dozens are unaccounted for. You send a single suicide bomber to carry it across the border from mexico or canada by hand. You lose one guy, there's nothing for the US to shoot down, and you don't have to develop any rocket technology. And a nuke leaves awfully little forensic evidence.
This argument is much harder to dispute. The United States' borders are not very well closed. The US govenment has caught people bringing bomb making materials into the country. I can't remember the name of the guy, but they caught someone right before the year 2000. I also heard that Osama Bin Ladden's people blew up our Embasies in other countries, rather than attack us on our native soil, because it was much easier. I don't pretend to understand the details of international terrorism, but there's some reason we don't have many terrorist attacks on US soil. I don't know if this would be different if these terrorists or rougue states had missles. I'm willing to bet though that the govenment has other plans to try and thwart domestic attacks. I think the need for a missle defense is likely not immediate, but we're going to need one, and it's going to take a long time to build. Better get started.
Yes, but consider this: this SDI, or child of SDI, or whatever its official name is, is out of our reach for the time being.
You're right. We can't just throw something together with off the shelf equipment and get it to work right now.
When we have the technology, and the need, to develop this, I will favor it. For now, though, it's a complete waste.
You could work in the marketing department where I work. If you wait to develop something until you have an immediate need, you're too late.
If the government doesn't invest in producing the technology, where's it going to come from? Are extraterrestrials going to give us the technology? Is the commercial avation industry supposed to create the technology on their own? Investing billions of dollars on a future technology that is difficult to develop, is going to be low volume, and the government is going to strictly regulate, isn't a very good businees model.
The technologies that are going to advance comercially, have been advancing rapidly. Processors and DSPs are considerably faster every year. If we want to produce this technology, we need to keep developing prototypes, doing tests, and learning from those tests. If a test fails, it doesn't mean that the goal isn't reachable, it means that you need to learn why it wasn't reached that time, and build a better system. These things take time, and a lot of money, but if we don't do them Millions of people may die.
Suitcase nukes do not have a good command and control loop (although internet encryption may change this :-( ). A country wanting to attack us is taking a huge risk by putting this weapon (and it WOULD be traceable if caught) in the hands of individuals who would have to smuggle it in, and then detonate it at the right time.
What if circumstances change and the leaders who provided the weapon don't want it to go off?
What if someone in the plot is captured, or defects?
The only good weather is bad weather.
For those who haven't noticed, the Russians *have* an operational ABM system protecting Moscow (as allowed by the treaty). Their system uses a large number of nuclear tipped interceptors. To those who ridicule the hit-to-kill technology (and I am suspicious of it because of decoy issues) - few of those arguments apply to a nuclear armed interceptor.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I figured somebody would mention this... It beats being blown up by a WHOLE LOT. The only local effects of significance would be electromagnetic pulse and, for those few who happened to be staring at the sky, temporary or permanent blindness. Hiroshima was only known to permanently blind *one* person, BTW. The radiatoactive fallout, which would be minimal because clean weapons would be used outside the atmosphere, would be diffused all over the world, at a relatively low level.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Testing, Testing, Is This Thing on?
Facist Country in the Middle Of Europe? Who unfroze Stalin?
The Cold War is Over. Hot-headed, irration thought like what you displayed will not only re-kindle the sentiment (flames?) of the last cold war, but could possibly make it boil over into something worse.
The absolute LAST thing that Russia needs is something else like a Nuclear Stockpile (to get through missle sheilds) to drain it's economy further. You think it's bad over there now, wait until The Kremlin decides that it's better to dump money into arms manufacture than feed it's populace. Think before you post.
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
Nuclear explosions require atmospheric pressure. At 140 miles up, I doubt there is sufficient pressure for this method of 'proximity' destruction.
I want to make it clear before saying what I'm about to say that I don't like the idea of the US building this system, I think it will serve to strengthen it's position as more that the policeman of the world, but as police, court, judge, jury and executioner. (You want to see a rogue state? There's one wedged between Canada and Mexico! "You don't agree with us? Well then we'll break you economically, probably invade you if we think you're worth it, and generally make life as difficult for you as you can imagine, and maybe more so.")
But I was very very impressed to hear that this test worked! Sure, out of four carried out so far, this is only the second to work, but to hit one missile with another at the sort of range is an impressive technological feat in my book.
So, ummm, nice one George, you've proved it can be done, now go back to looking for Hawaii, there's a good chap.
--
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
According to Stephen Pinker overgeneralising a regular past tense is a common error in small children. Howver, 'to succeed' is perfectly reguar. 'Successed' is the kind of error made not by human brains, but by neural networks that don't have the concept of a variable.
You have failed the Turing Test again. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
But now that Michael's made mention of it, and Carnivore has logged it, the Feds should be able to haul him in before he helps someone do something about it.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
I feel it is worth pointing out that NMD is geared toward nutcase attacks, and not a full blown attack by russia or china or whatever.
As you pointed out, if they fire enough missiles, some will eventually get through. This is why they shouldn't be too worried about NMD.
Now if someone were to manage to launch a few missiles at the US, NMD would have a much higher chance of success.
Additionally, this situation where a nutcase does launch is much less likely to lead to a full out war, assuming the nutcase launch is successefully averted.
btw, I agree about the bomb smuggling scenario. reminds me of that tom clancy book, "The Sum of All Fears"
You are kind of hitting on what the russians/them are really bothered with. I don't think they could really care if the NMD worked or not, they are concerned with the fact that we would be building more/new/better ICBM's, and they only have our word that we will use the kinetic kill vehicle instead of a nuke.
The whole reason we are not using some sort of explosive warhead is to prevent the missile from being percieved as an offensive tool, rather than defensive (and I don't mean that in the offending sense of the word).
Why does a nuclear explosion require atmospheric pressure? That is the first time I've ever heard that.
The news last night stated that there is a push to get a 1st base for these started in Alaska.
Hmm, ICBM's fly over the North pole, Alaska defences intercept them, and the debris falls on Canada...
Yep, I'm _totally_ in favour of this.
Vinnie
"Remember, any tool can be the right tool." -- Red Green
You sir, and please pardon my language, are a dumbshit, and no, this is not a troll.
The post you reference to was not an insult, and none of the people expressing surprise that the arm worked flawlessly were not insulting Canada. If you had bothered to do any research, you would have noticed that the ISS Canadarm2 has been PLAGUED with problems over the last month, and any surprise about it performing well is NOT based in some sort of anti-canadian rhetoric, but instead actual surprise that none of the so-called 'showstopping problems' ever reared their ugly heads during an exteremely complicated assembly sequence.
Traditionally, a person objecting to an insult is supposed to at least RECOGNIZE whether or not an insult was actually given.
I offer a point by point rebuttal:
1. What is the level of evidence you propose to prove that it did happen? The DoD has showed radar tracks, video footage, and allowed reporters realtime access. If they had flown a super duper satellite with a video camera that could observe the impact first hand, you might suggest that was faked as well, so what impossible level of evidence do you need? Your statement is not food for thought, it is a red herring.
2. The first few airplanes did not fly. If all work on airplanes had stopped because the first couple didn't work, we would be in quite a pickle. Failure is a very real presence in any new endeavour, you would be a fool not to realize it. It is upon the backs of failure that success is born.
3. You suggest that if out of 100 missiles one got through that the attack would be 100% effective, and the system would therfor be ineffective. This is akin to arguing that condoms should not be worn during sex because they only reduce the chance of contracting an STD to 5% instead of 0%. Your argument is flawed, and the hundred million people that are or are not killed by the 99 missiles intercepted in your example disagree with you.
4. Any system that rellies on only prevention or only interception is bound to fail. A well structured defense embodies elements of both of those.
5. Citing a Bloom County cartoon as evidence is not very impressive. You would profit from finding better sources. It is a great comic strip, but a debate tool.
6. Your being 'scared' is also not data supporting your viewpoint. Additionally, if you have found a One True Definition to the word 'civilized' as you imply, the world will beat a path to your doorstep so you can settle the whole thing once and for all. If, on the other hand, you have NOT solved this world problem, please don't let the virtual door hit your ass on the way out.
Lucky for you they can't read this since they banned the internet.
Seriously though, does anyone believe that any country that can get a nuclear device can't also find a way to deliver it that doesn't involve lobbing it through space? Does anyone believe that any nation that can build an ICBM can't also build countermeasures that could defeat these missile defences?
I'm pretty sure that this is just another way for the US government to justify its huge military budget and stimulate the economy by buying heaps of stuff. Kind of economic masturbation. Wish I knew how it worked - you borrow heaps of money, spend it useless shit and then benefit from how great the economy is. Its just a pity they can't spend the money on better forms of energy, or better "education" systems, or other projects that would actually benefit people.
Although a terrorist organization is more likely to go for B or C, rather than A - i.e. Biological or Chemicla weapons.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Consider this: How much would a 'rogue' nation PAY the US to NOT retaliate when said nation fires a 'blank' at the US?
The leader of the 'rogue' nation can 'flex' his muscles for his people, the US can claim a success of the defense system, AND make some money off of it.
Or we go back to the old UFO theory. No US citizen would go along with a missle defense system that was built with the intent of saving the world from alien invaders. But what if there are? Many of you admit the US government doesn't tell all. Why, if there was proof, would they even tell anyone?
You people complain that NASA isn't getting enough funding, and the military is getting too much. Would you rather have NASA with no weapons come across a hostile race out there somewhere?
At face value, the military is worth MUCH more than NASA. So you point to ancilliary gains to promote NASA. Guess what, both groups provide much more than face value in the areas of R&D.
Stop whining, and pretend your whopping 10k of tax dollars wholly funds some program you favor. Stop acting like you fund the whole freaking government.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
> a) A single nuke in a suitcase is a minor attack. While it might kill
> hundreds of millions, it won't wipe out the country.
Same is true for a single ICBM.
>b) We have defenses in place for that kind of attack. Everything from
> FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on, all investigate any suspicious activity.
1. Well, I guess you don't know about the special rights of diplomats in foreign countries ("immunity"). So it's no problem to get larger ammounts of material for nuclear, biological or chemical warfare into "your" country and distribute them to the (say) 100 largest cities.
2. "You" have defenses in place against drugs as well and still hundreds of tons of them get into your country.
BTW, there are a few other (more realistic than "rouge country fires ICBM" or "rouge country sends agent with suitcase") ways to deploy a nuke or chemical or biological warhead:
a) commercial ships. There's much space in ships, they can come easily very close to large cities on the east or west coast of the US of A. Heck, you could even put it into a container and the ship's crew will never know...
b) commercial airplanes - yes, even "rouge countries" sometimes do have airlines.
Well, containers exist for airplanes as well. It has the additional advantage of flying high in the athmosphere so you can contaminate large areas with a single bomb.
c) cruise missiles - there are a few examples of small unpiloted aircraft flying low and across oceans which are hard to detect.
> Israel - Short/Intermediate range delivery only and these weapons were made with major US help
They have the "Shavit" launch system derived from an MRGBM capable of putting 160kg into a 366km Orbit.
And I doubt it was built with "major US help" since it's basically identical to South Africa's RSA-3.
Read here for more about it:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shavit.htm
BTW: You've forgotten North Korea's Taepodong 1 (not successful so far)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/taedong1.htm
and Brazil wich also has it's own launchers
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vls.htm
Both countrys should be able to built nuclear warheads if they really try (brazil) or hat the economic power (north korea).
Oh and let's not forget Japan...
> China is more likely to have missiles tasked on Russia who they share
i ss ile.treaty/index.html
> a massive land border with, and with whome they have had far from ideal relations.
This is wrong - you are talking about the Soviet Union and China. Actually China and Russia signed a "friendship agreement" recently:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/16/m
I thing this is one of the first results of US playing "Star Wars".
>I did some calculations a while back, and itseems quite possible for a laser of MIRACL's
>power to damage and destroy an ICBM (sorry, I'm too tired to dig up a link to my old post where
>I do the calcs).
That's allright, I have no doubt you proved this in the margins of an old notebook, just waiting to be found or rediscovered around here somewhere.
--Ryan
That's how cold war works.
He is a politician. And a very slick one. It's stupid to listen him, he is saying pursuing his own interests, not truth.
Of course, the fact that MAD is about the most immoral poicy any government can have.. "Here mr. insane dictator, hold a few million of my civillians hostage, please!" Ok, so they'll try to make better missiles. Does tht mean that the US government should not "provide for the common defense" with more than a hope and a prayer? That's all we have now. We hope and pray that someone else won't pull the trigger.
Wait, wait, you're arguing *for* the case that smuggling nukes (or anything) into the US from Canada is relatively easy. If you're coming *from* Canada *to* the US (as I have, several times), you deal with the US border patrol, not the Canucks.
-Legion
If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said. As your original post stands, you're talking about bringing items from Canada into the US, not into Canada from anywhere else.
Maybe English isn't your first language...?
-Legion
People can believe what they want. I believe the president (especially the current) would be happy to push that button. Really. Don't consider YOURSELF in that situation, you would probably not do it - that's why you're not in that position either. People in power are people that love power and making powerful decisions. They get a rush from it.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I would say you understand economy well, but your conclusion is missing. When the government creates advanced technology like missiles, alot of it comes back in taxes, research and technology (that rusts away) that is true. Money is circulating in society, that is also true. Where the money flows is cruicial. What types of people get money and how is it spent? Rich people will spend on luxury, which will benefit circulation in society. While poor people will often spend on the cheapest products that will have a more dramatic effect on production and the resources available.
All this looks good, you can have a good balance. However, you conclude that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you produce? I'd conclude otherwise: Think of how dramatic you can change the world if governments spend money on things that actually benefits the population and environment?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
How do you expect people to take your retarded and misinformed comments seriously if you can't even spell? Not to mention grammar...I could barely understand what was trying to escape from your driveling liberal lsd "enhanced" mind.
you're getting your rhetorics mixed up...are you the hippy socialist liberal against big companies, or are you a sensible conservative who thinks that spurious lawsuits should be punishable by a harsh beating?
And then we just get into the whole arms race again !
We imagine they have weapons, so build bigger weapons, they image we build bigger weapons, so build even bigger weapons, round and round in circles we go, where we stops, nobody knows.
The only solution is to take a proactive stance, reduce arms ! Now ! Oh and get rid of that George Dubya while you're at it.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Micheal is appearently having a bad day, so, like anyone who isn't from there would do, he's taking it out on Canada.
See, no reason to get your panties in a knot about it, it's the natural thing to do.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''Yes, it is bad when billions of dollars are paid to contractors building weapons systems that may not be necessary, and more importantly, do not work either mechanically or strategically. The money in question gives the contractors the incentive to lie, and lie big, to get the money to finance their companies.
And about the money being good for the economy; isn't government spending to stimulate the economy the ultimate bugaboo of the far right? It's supposed to be communistic -- all those totalitarian, confiscatory laws designed to give our hard-earned tax dollars to unworthy blacks, etc. But it's OK if it's a rich pack of contractors in Idaho getting the money, I guess...
The business of the government of the people of the U.S. is not keeping defense businesses well-funded and alive. I can't think of anything more anti-free market at the moment.
That said, here we have an Israel that has tested and deployed an ABM "shield" in a country so geographically small that, if the opportunity arose, it could be overrun by tanks from neighboring countries to the east in less time than it takes to watch an episode of your favorite cartoon.
Israel is in a far worse situation than the US and they've created a missle shield BECAUSE THEY NEED ONE. They have a history of attacks from all sides. The Iraqis bombed them from afar with conventionally-equipped Scuds and just as easily with nukes (if Saddam had them at the time). The US, on the other hand, has not fought a war on its own soil against a foreign foe since its War of Independence (called the Revolutionary War by some) (I'm excluding the Spanish-American War, here, as only certain battles were fought on land that was only transiently US).
In closing, we don't have any especially strong enemies. Nothing at all like the Cold War. We are living in Pax Americana today. Bush's attempts to bolster our military against certain possible future enemies is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and foolish, as is his style. Besides that, fabricating an enemy to satiate your followers is such an old, easy, and undoubtedly follysome idea that Bush should be laughed at for even employing it.
-------------------------
Stupid people suck.
The test was most likely done under ideal conditions, and the Military has been known to give their toys less than realistic advantages when the public is actually interested in the outcome.
I know this is /. and all but did you even bother to skim the story? Let me spell it out for you...
"It managed to disregard the decoy that the Minuteman was carrying and smash into its intended target, the dummy warhead."
Now, granted the ppl lauching the interceptor knew exactly when the minuteman was launching but this was just a preliminary test and it did manage to ignore a decoy. While this sucessful test doesn't say with any finality that the technology is or isn't workable I would certainly keep quiet if I was one of those ppl who have been saying that the tech "will never work."
I'm reminded of one quote that seems particularly fitting...
"Never say never."
I don't know about anyone else here but I'm all for having a system that can pick off a few nukes sent up by a rouge terrorist organization.
-Pato
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Why would someone bother to bring it over by hand, when you can FedEx it overnight delivery from anywhere in the world?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
How old are you? Obviously not old enough to remember a time very recently when one would go to bed wondering if they would wake up in the morning, or be vaporized by a hydrogen bomb in their sleep.
It is amazing to me that anyone would object to a military system which has as its sole purpose DEFENSE. The peaceniks used to protest and moan about MAD, now they protest and moan about a doctrine that is solely defensive in a world where MAD is no longer even relevant.
Its a different world. The Cold War doctrines are obsolete. The ABM treaty is moot, all parties know it. The Russians don't really care, they just want a bargaining position to get the US to recognize a Russian sphere of control in the former Soviet states. The Chinese only care because a missile defense system nullifies their 20 year buildup of surface to surface missiles meant to be used on Taiwan. The Chinese nuclear deterrent is a non-issue, they DON'T HAVE a deterrent because relatively speaking, we would obliterate them while they would only give us a bloody nose.
Bush has offered to extend the technology to all our allies, and even partner with Russia on it. This is technology that benefits everyone, except those who would use weapons of mass destruction as an international aggressor.
Derek
First of all, "A priori" is Latin for "prior to". It is common in a legal scope for describing people who have committed crimes before those crimes were law. Hence, the act later defined as a crime was committed prior to the law being made.
Second, I believe that the news highlights the improvements made since the first test. I highly doubt there was no research into each failed test. Tell me, when you f* up at your job, do you continue doing whatever you do without looking for your error? You likely find your error and get all excited and cream your pants when you figure out what the heck you've been doing wrong. That's probably what just happened... they figured out what they've been doing wrong.
Saddam could be livin' it up in a matter of months.
More on that project is available here. It is in conjunction with Boeing and TRW.
A space-based laser is planned to follow (also similar to the plan of the plot in Real Genius. Though it is not due to be functional until 2008-2010, it is already in design stages. It is also a USAF & Lockheed Martin project. For more info about it, check here.
It's interesting for those of you who have seen Real Genius how closely our Missle Defense System will follow the course of the movie. It is almost a theft of the plot. The main difference is that airborne/space-based laser in the movie was to be used for offensive strategy, not defensive.
Here's the relevant scenario. Our friends the Serbs (or Iranians, or Larry Ellis) invest between $100,000 and $2M in a sounding rocket, which is available over the counter and can deliver payloads from 200 lbs. (your suitcase bomb) to a ton or so. The low end rockets would need to launch from somewhere close, but they don't require a lot of room or facilities. The top end models can achieve low earth orbit. Do you really think that Milosovic or Hussein would hesitate to launch that one lone missle as their weary countrymen finally rise up to throw them out? What does Larry do when the Supreme Court finally gives Bill full license to crush him? For the $20M that was spent for a Soviet space joy ride, at least four missles could reach the US from almost anywhere.
This is the threat to stop. It doesn't even matter whether the other guy has a warhead; do you really want to call his bluff? Would we support Kuwait, or Israel, or Austria if our involvement might result in taking out New York? If Mexico says to loosen up immigration or else, would we be willing to make a nuclear hole on our own border? Even a kiloton of conventional explosive or nerve gas will kill thousands if properly placed (lobbed onto a nuclear reactor, perhaps). A thin missle defense puts the cost of this out of the reach of the madmen and rogue states.
A lot of cops have had their lives saved by bulletproof vests, even though the drug czars can afford RPGs which could render them irrelevant. It is just plain nuts to think that a defense against cheap thuggery somehow lowers safety.
If you test something like this often enough, sooner or later it will work by pure luck. Then you stop because you have done enough to secure your funding and can spend the next 5 years building fun toys.
The trick is to convince the wooden heads to fund enough tests in the first place. That is what pork barrel is for.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Here's a news flash: agreements between heavily-armed parties are a Good Thing. Breaking those agreements is a Bad Thing. In this case, everybody loses.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Slashdot is not a forum for spouting hatred towards our president. Please show some respect.
The Tick : Spooooooooooooooooooooon!.
The Tick : Spooooooooooooooooooooon!.
Neo : There is no spoon.
As a few already did point out a suitcase nuke does not have that much yield, but on a ship you can transport one hell of a nuke and you don't need any sophistication or miniaturisation. You can even transport enough lead or other stuff to fool radiation detectors.
Hell, you don't even have to sail into the harbor or even the territorial waters of the US. Drop the bomb outside the continental shelf and detonate it with a simple pressure detector. The resulting tsunami should be enough to show the US the supremacy of {insert favorite relogion and/or political belief here}.
MadEagle
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Big 'W' quite literally bribed everyone in America with $350 checks to get himself elected. In other words, I don't condone or support W himself, and could care less what he has to say.
1.The other kind of attack is vastly more likely.
2.It's expensive and we need money for other known problems.
3."defending yourself" antagonizes the rest of the world.
4.It is known that the policy will start an arms race.
5.The system will never be 100% effective and the arms race could increase the long-term attack risk by giving the world an even larger supply of weapons.
1. No, those kinds of attacks are far less likely. And as I've said, we have many defenses in place for that type of offense already.
2. When we are giving back money to tax-payers, we certainly don't 'need that money', and there is nothing more important than protection of the tax-payers
3. It does not 'antagonize' the rest of the world. More bull made up by extremists to appeal to people such as yourself.
4. Again, no it wont.
5. No system will EVER be 100% effective, and defense systems don't nullify established treaties. It does not make the world any less safe, just our corner of it slightly more safe.
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
1. Immunity means that diplomats will not be held responsible for their crimes, not that they don't go through the same checkpoints and investigation as the rest of us.
2. The CIA and NSA don't attempt to stop drug trafficing. If they did, drug trade would grind to a halt.
a,b,c) Same problem, the CIA/NSA are known for having a firm grasp on the position of atomic weapons. It's not the kind of thing you can make in a secret lab. They track the positions of all terrorists, known extremists, and have plenty of spys in place as well. The USA is quite well protected from atomic weapons smugling.
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
a) A single nuke in a suitcase is a minor attack. While it might kill hundreds of millions, it won't wipe out the country.
b) We have defenses in place for that kind of attack. Everything from FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on, all investigate any suspicious activity. While we all see them as idiots, they are on top of things. It's long been the policy of the USA to hide their weapons (of all types) from the public in the interest of national security. I'm certain there are a handful of government agancies looking into my back yard right now, wondering what the hell that deformed hot-water heater is.
Besides, even if you don't believe me, there is no logic in not defending yourself from one form of attack when another is possible.
Cops wear bullet-proof vests to protect them from gunshots to the chest, they don't just say 'screw it all' because they don't have anything to protect them from gunshot wounds to the head. Protect yourself in every way you can! I'm happy the US is finally wising up
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
which will protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have and would be silly to use
Michael, are you naive enough to believe that NO foreign country has, or is in the process of developing, ICBMs?
Wouldn't most people say that Saddam Hussein was "silly" for attacking Kuwait when he knew he'd have half the world kicking his ass?
I get kind of nervous when I think about nutjobs running countries that might shoot missiles at us. But maybe that's just me.
love,
br4dh4x0r
I have to say, I'm not all that opposed to a limited defense program to knock out one crazy launch for whatever reason (accident or nutcase dictator with a funny hat and big boots), but pissing of everybody else in the world and setting off another arms race doesn't seem quite worth it. If we're really doing this to defend against rogue launches and terrorists, why don't all the superpowers cooperate and design a system that had this limited capability? Everybody who would be hurt by the shield (the nuclear powers) would then get the benefit of a limited shield against a couple of kooky launches *and* we'd still be able to blow each other to hell. Somehow, I don't think that defense against terrorists and small rogue nations is what Mr. Bush has in mind...
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Perhaps someone should warn all those lovely peeps at Columbia Internet ...
-Paul
-Paul
www.lpbk.net - A complete waste of a domain name if ever I saw one
So - instead of building a suitecase nuke or a truck nuke, you build a freighter nuke. You can get to New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, and less commonly targtted places like Boston and New Orleans.
With a bit more patience, you can get to Cleveland. Detroit, and Chicago.
As long as your nuke doesn't weigh more than a hundred tons or so, it should fit on the boat, likely in just one hold. The rest of the holds can carry real cargo, so you can make some money while you're at it. With a little creativity, you can likley assemble at sea. I doubt there are many low-level air patrols in the South Atlantic.
Altough it's a ground level explosion (much less efective than airborne) it still has a lot of punch.
Or how about putting it in one of those advertisement blimps...
Or maybe use one of those recreational sail-ships ...
Or put it on a plane from some crappy security airport ...
I think that probably the only reason why no terrorist group has ever tried one of this methods (or something else i can't even concieve), is because the lack the fissionable material (there aro too many "rogue" governments out there with big pockets trying to get their hands on the stuff - the price of it is probably too high for terrorist groups)
I see. If you can think of some prejudicial
insult to the source, then you are free to
disbelieve anything from that source, regardless
of whether it is true or false. I'll have to
remember that. I'm sure it will come in handy
when I'm trying to decieve myself in the future.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
> Screw the rest of you - 'were saving ourselves!'
It is in the interests of all of the people of the world that the U.S. should not be induced to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. The most effective means of reducing the probable impact of U.S. retaliatory nuclear strikes is to prevent the detonation of nuclear devices in U.S. territory. The most effective means of preventing such detonations is the destruction of such devices prior to delivery.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
i've been watching this Helios story for a couple of months now. the company that designed & built Helios (w/ NASA) is AeroVironment, founded by Paul McCready (of Gossamer Albatross fame). there are some pretty cool commercial applications intended for this program.
"The timeframe for the test was chosen to minimize the danger to boats and air traffic."
You mean if it can not find a missile, it sends a really "warm" welcome to visitors?
Gee, thanks.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
You want proof NMD won't work? Try this: 1) The Maignot Line - Technical marvel of the 30's and 40's. Impregnable. Hitler circumvented it by going where the Maignot line wasn't. France fell in two weeks. 2) The Atlantic Wall. Hitler tells Rommel to build an defensive wall the Allies can't breach. Rommel knowing full well it was a waste of resources, followed orders. Nonetheless, Rommel had targeted every square foot of vulnerable beach front. It took Eisenhower one day to breach the defense on D-Day, June 6th, 1944. 3) The DMZ. It was going the keep the North Vietnamese out of South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh sent his troops around the high tech fence. My point is: Every static defense ever built has been breached or circumvented. The attacker has the time to figure out where the weak points are and then exploits them. Nukes can be packaged small enough that they can be hand carried to their destination. A few of those stashed around will not be stopped by a $100 billion pork-barrel missile field in Alaska. Moreover, there's the cost of building this travesty. To pay for it, Rumsfield wants to pare troop strength down so we no longer can fight a two-front war. During WWII, which coast do you think got the resources? "We'll fight Japan *after* we finish here in Europe." was what Nimitz was told. Or how about this? The Russians have stipulated that if we withdraw from the ABM treaty, they'll stop decommissioning their MIRV'ed missiles as they have been doing per the START treaty. So we unravel a web of treatys just so Bush can enrich his buddies? We'll end up facing more missiles, not fewer if NMD goes ahead. Where in God's green earth does this make any sense?
But even that didn't make you look as bad as last elections, the decision to restart the Star Wars program or the idea that there's no need to protect the ozon layer.
Um, if it helps against having this post marked down as flamebait: our politicians are idiots too, the only difference is that we're not as powerful as the US (mind you, we would take care of the environment and probably not do something like the Star Wars program).
Monkey sense
Perhaps they should give border guards lightsabers so that they can keep the name but change the concept?
-- Judas96
"...don't take a nerf bat to a knife fight." - Joe Rogan, said on News Radio
Design a missile that shall hit an immobile city-size target and evade interception en route.
Design a missile that shall intercept the above-mentioned missile before it hits its city-size target.
Which would you think is the easier job?
Think: cluster bombs, dummies, maneuvers.
Who has the upper hand at the get-go?
Actually, if the Wrights (and everybody else working on heavier than air flight) had abandoned the idea, we would not be in a pickle. We would not be worrying about ICBMs, bombs, or any other flying threat. Every technological advance has both positive and negative consequences.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
[Ring... Ring..]
"Hello. Mr. Gretzky speaking.. ?"
"Your Eminence! This is Candian super secret special forces. They're on to us, eh!"
"What? They're on to us?"
"Yes... They've found out about the suitcase, eh. I'm not sure how, but we have to abort operation Hoser. Right now, eh!"
"Yikes, eh! I'll check in with our agent in Los Angeles!"
[Ring.. Ring..]
"Hi, Bill here"
"Mr. Shatner, this is Gretzky, eh!"
"Your Eminence! What can I do for you, eh!"
"They've found out about the suitcase! We need to abort, eh!"
"OH-MY-GOD....... How-did-they-ever-find-out about..........operation-hoser?
"We're not sure but we suspect Celine, eh. I never did trust her. What's our current situation in LA, eh?"
"We've-ammased..... 125,000 Canucks in LA. The 'mericans don't..... suspect-a-thing. You don't mean were going to...... have-to-abort, eh?"
"No.. not yet. I'll check in with the others..."
[Ring... Ring... ]
"Mr. Meyers speaking.."
"Mike! It's Wayne.. Operation hoser is at risk, eh. Have you heard anything?"
"Damnit, eh! After that South Park movie I knew they'd catch on. We've got most of the population's IQ down thanks to Mr. Carey's movies, eh? And now with the legions of hockey players situated in all the major cities -- it'd be a shame to stop now.. "
"Yes, agent Shatner said he was pretty sure the LA army was still undetected, eh. I think we'll scrap plan hoser and go with our backup plan - touque. They'll never figure that one out. Myers, can you call up the others: McLachlan, Martin, Fox, Levy, Shaffer, Trebek. I'm going to call an emergency meeting at 6 o'clock. 6:30 in Newfoundland,eh"
"Okay.. I got it.. I'll talk to you later, eh! Bye.."
So between now and the three years they say this system will take to get operational, the US is a prime target - one fat sitting duck waiting for the hunters to pull the trigger? Well, good-bye y'all. I just hope the terrorists wait a year or so, I want to see if the new Star Trek series is any good.
Money for nothing, pix for free
So if you don't have this missile defense system and haven't had it ever, why hasn't anyone thrown an ICBM at you yet? It's not like you all have been good boys all the time, now is it?
Money for nothing, pix for free
It's a cool project, technology-wise, but it's a really, really bad idea in the Real World(TM). Let's not rekindle the arms race, just walk away from this one.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Is it just me or has anyone else allready heard this kind of discussuion (in the eighties, maybe)?
I mean we're talking global nuclear war here. Hello? Are you thinking anyone except for some fanatic nationalists out there (who don't have access to ICBMs) may be stupid enought to launch a missile against the USA. They'd be dust in approx. 40 minutes...
What unnerves me more is the fact the someone in W. (everyone in charge right now) seems to be happy to spend billions of $ on missile defence on not a fscking buck on global warming...
The U.S.-Canada border is huge. My uncle has a cabin in the Great Lakes area where you can get to Canada in a boat in like 5 minutes. I doubt that traffic is monitored very much. It would be really easy to bring a suitcase over in a small boat to a private dock in the U.S. I doubt anyone would notice.
There are several misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. Rather than simple reactionary blasts from the right, we need to look at the situation from a more pragmatic situation.
Of course they would - in the event of a direct threat to their territory, including (possibly) Taiwan. As long as we're not planning on invading Hong Kong, we're safe on the first part. The second? I have serious doubts that a situation would come that would force the Chinese leadership to use nukes over Taiwan. What you've got to remember about the Han people is that they have the 'long view'. They are perfectly willing to wait to get what they want. That's always worked for them before. The Han are a very patient people as long as you stay out of there territory. Please read a fine book on their history China: A New History. Actually, they're not nearly as difficult as you'd think. Those first ones were huge because they were the first ones. The prototype of anything is always rougher than the production model. Besides which, you're over engineering the problem == you're thinking plutonium. In the 1950s the U.S. produced a uranium nuke for the 8" artillery piece. It weighed about 250 pounds and was about 30" inches high. That will fit in a 55 gallon barrel rather nicely. The most difficult part of the device to make would be the beryllium inner casing. Machining the uranium could easily be done on just about any CNC machine. Sintering the beryllium would probably be much harder, but there may be commercial machinery that I'm not aware of that could be modified to do so. Yield in the above device was upwards of 12 kilotons. Which is a rather large bang and more than enough to make any city unlivable for a couple of decades at least.Yes, but consider this: this SDI, or child of SDI, or whatever its official name is, is out of our reach for the time being. That's right, billions of dollars of taxpayer money is being thrown down the drain. Any scientist or engineer worth his/her salt laughed at the Strategic Defense Initiative when Reagan suggested it, and they continue to laugh now.
Yes, but Gorbachev didn't find it quite so funny. As the USSR tried to counter SDI, they poured craploads of money into a comparable program that had no value to them (since it wasn't going to work, and SDI was not a threat), while ignoring serious problems at home, speeding up their demise. So in that way, it worked, even if the US couldn't get it to work technically.
Besides, currently the threat of a nuclear attack is more from rogue states and leaders, then China or Russia. With a limited scope, this program could while I think it would be a while until it could handle an assault from a few hundred warheads.
Does it make the man with the bulletproof suit more likely to shoot? No, it doesn't.
ahem...
Hiroshima, Nagasaki
If the US was faced with a conflict that could risk a lot of American lives, I don't doubt for a second that Dubya would launch a nuke to "warn" the enemy that we can destroy them with minimal damage. And that is why everyone is rallying against this. Building a missile defense doesn't deter anyone from launching nukes, it only raises the bar a few notches and encourages everyone to develop more effective ways to have missiles deliver their payload.
---
Hammer of Truth
The only use for this missile defense system is to keep extremist nations from holding ANY other nation hostage.
That's the sugar-coating, feel-good vibe that the US govt wants to portray. I'm not trying to sound like an extremist nutcase here, but the fact of the matter is that if the opportunity presented itself to send a strong message with little fear of retaliation, the US (military leaders) would be all over it without a second thought (example: Pakistan invades India, starts a mass genocide campaign... the US steps in and nukes a strategic military installation in some Pakastani mountain somewhere, Pakistan immediately withdraws all troops from India).
Like I said before, it only raises the bar, because most countries are going to tuck their tail and run at first, but rest assured they will turn the dial up on ICBM research. It simply becomes a matter of "who can blow up more missiles" rather than "who can blow up more cities".
---
Hammer of Truth
The russians don't like it. The chinese don't like it. The europeans don't like it. Most other countries don't dare say much. The US won't be happy before they can nuke the rest of the world to hell (done), and not the entire rest of the world could hit them back if they tried (on it's way).
Your argument reinforces the notion that the US does in fact need a missle defense system. You hate an entire populous based on their geographic location - perhaps a certain dictatorship feels the same way as you do.
Remind me to invent a virus that could kill off all americans.. might be kinda hard though, with all the races involved. I'll look for genes containing self-centered, paranoid, arrogant and megalomanious behavior, that should do it.
If you don't like the US, leave. If you don't live in the US, then don't buy our goods. If you don't like US news, then don't read US news.
Anyway, I hope you stay very bitter while reading this American owned geek site, reading mostly American comments, on the American Internet, using your American computer, which is probably running an American OS (unless it's Linux, which is a clone of an American OS, but Linus lives here anyway, so it may as well be American.)
Why do I keep typing pythong?
Unless I'm completely mistaken, that is the opt-out if any party *is* attacked, I don't think any other reason would be satisfactory to the world society.
Not to mention withdrawing from this treaty will practicly eliminate the basis for all later treaties, MIRVs etc.
The russians don't like it. The chinese don't like it. The europeans don't like it. Most other countries don't dare say much. The US won't be happy before they can nuke the rest of the world to hell (done), and not the entire rest of the world could hit them back if they tried (on it's way).
Remind me to invent a virus that could kill off all americans.. might be kinda hard though, with all the races involved. I'll look for genes containing self-centered, paranoid, arrogant and megalomanious behavior, that should do it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield.
Suitcase? don't be a silly American. We Canadians have always prefered beercase nukes. Cheap, easy to transport, tend to make more friends than enemies, and we consistently build them with higher yields than the American versions.
Careful, we may have to come down there and get blasted!
Plus nukes in subs all over the place?
Couldn't China and Russia defeat our "missile shield" by simply putting their nukes in submarines? I would think that it would be cheaper to build stealthy subs than try and counteract our missile shiled with evasive missile flying.
The range of today's test was in the order of thousands of miles; no missile shield is going to prevent a strike on Los Angeles from a Chinese sub 20 miles off the coast. And the nations that can't build subs can't really afford ICBMs, either; they'll just use a suitcase nuke.
--
$tar -xvf
You are a little too clever for your own good, try reading sometime.
This system is NOT designed to stop a full-scale attack launched by Russia or China. Bush has stated that publicly himself several times.
The missile defense system (which is NOT Star Wars) is designed to defend against a small-scale strike launched by rouge nations such as N. Korea, Iraq, etc. These countries are actively trying to develop long-range missiles, which should be ready in about 10 years.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
About StarWars Deux:
Please, if you are American, stop this war-mongering of your government. We dont need another Arms Race, no one except the Military Industrial Complex.
If, under some circumstance, someone proposed this to be a 'method to disarm all' and put it in the control of the UN, to protect *EVERY* country - the *whole* world - I might see it differently. But as it stands now, it is a very arrogant move of posturing by an arrogant state. If simple defence was the only purpose, and the US Gov. only wanted protection, than you would see this being approached in a much different fashion.
Outside of pork-barreling for the Plutocrats that already run the country, I cannot (inspite of my best paranoia-induced dillusions) imagine What The Fuck They Are Thinking. We have had a good lenght of peace, why stir the pot?
...and dont give me any of this 'rogue state' crap - these other states are simply the ones with nuts to stand up to American Imerialism. This, to them, is being a 'rogue' state.
Im just beside myself at the massive stupidity of the whole idea... My vote is that the rest of the world declare USofA a 'rogue state' and collectively we enforce sanctions.
The US is not breaking the ABM treaty. Either party is legally allowed to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice. IMHO, the US government is doing exactly what it's supposed to--take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens from foreign powers. If the foreign powers don't like it, that's too bad, because they won't be able to do much about it.
;)
Thats a lovely thought. Screw the rest of you - 'were saving ourselves!'. The present ABM treaty has helped us assure some peace for the last 30 years. Why are you proposing to change that? Further, when dealing with international matters like these, if they are *really* important to the people of America, why wouldnt they also be important to people everywhere? If you can argue that they are important for people (as opposed to imperialistic plutocrats and the military-industrial complex) than why wouldnt America, as a memeber of the UN (or some other complete and inclusive agency) ask to have this system built and deployed the whole world over? Why not, if this system can really do good - protect people from nuts with nukes - offer to also protect China, Russia, Africa, Cuba and the rest? If this was a 'defensive' and 'honest' idea - this would be the tact.... but not surprisingly, this isnt the method being employed. The snip from your post above illustrates the offensive tone that this son-of-star-wars idea is being rammed through... and make no mistake, America is acting contrary to the wishes of *EVERYONE* else on the planet - except maybe Isreal
OK, so it's a smallish crate. No biggie, just put it in the back of a van, or an estate car.
Hey, why not build the nuke to *fill* the back of a van? That would give you loads of room for perhaps up to 50kt yield!
The fact that the editors do form an opinion or add humor to a story is why I read slashdot so much. And it's just that -- an opinion. You have the freedom to give your own in the comments as you have already shown above. If you want "just plain news" then go to MSNBC. ;)
It's still an incredibly stupid idea.
Why? If other countries that might otherwise have the option (any country with a nuke) feel they cannot threaten the US anymore, it creates an unacceptable situation. Most countries already feel the US dictates terms to them too much as it is. If we had the ability to nuke them and they couldn't nuke us back, we'd be able to dictate any terms we wanted. This would be unacceptable to any nation with a backbone.
If we build it big enough to shoot down 20 missiles, everyone will make sure they have 30. If we build it big enough to shoot down 2000 simultaneous missiles, they'll develop advanced decoy or stealth tech to make sure some get through. The more the US persists, the more the rest of the world will work together to make sure that the power does not remain unilateral. Even the US cannot maintain absolute technological dominance over the rest of the world working together.
There's no effective level of defense, ever. We can't ever develop a "limited" shield, because everyone will just make sure they're above the limit. It's as simple as that.
In the meantime, every country in the world will waste trillions of dollars, drawing effort from the thousands of other problems we all face.
The ONLY real excuse I can see is the accidental launch theory. In which case, let the US put it's money where it's mouth is - if this is really to save lives against accidental launches, let everyone have the technology. Set up NMD bases all over the world under UN control with oversight from every country at every site. Everyone will have the ability to shoot down 2 incoming ICBMs in case of an accidental launch or true suicidal wacko, and nobody will have the ability to develop it to a point where it interferes with someone's deterrent force. If it's really only defensive, then use it to defend everyone.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
This was exactly the same logic used by British and French in trying to appease Hitler. Are you blind ?
The situations aren't even remotely parallel. Hitler was a known aggressor, using conventional means to conquer territory. Appeasing him gave him more time to build up forces with which to continue the process.
Nuclear ICBMs, on the other hand, are a negotiation tool. You can't use them to take over territory. The only thing you can use them for is to give leverage to a threat. If you use it, you're both fscked and you both know it.
There's no "known aggressor", like Hitler, that we'd be appeasing in this case. Nobody we'd be encouraging to take over the world by not building it. Who are you suggesting is Hitler in your scenario?
Furthermore, we know for a fact that building it will spark a military buildup, because China has promised to start an arms race if we build the damn thing.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Exactly. This is fundamentally an image problem. Building a military solution to the problem and breaking a treaty in the process convinces the rest of the world even more that we're the enemy. So we get more terrorists coming our way.
The shit of it is, dubya and friends will point to the increased terrorism that results as evidence that they were right and we needed a defense system after all. Nicely self-fulfilling.
Of course, it won't be stopping the kind of terrorism that results.
It's time for the US to start playing by the same rules they force on everyone else. The fact that we don't is the reason we have so many enemies now.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Furthermore, the concept of a "suitcase nuke" is absurd. Such a weapon would have a relatively insignificant explosive yield.
Bullshit. From the New York Post, November 8, 1999. (full text requires purchase).
Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, was a 15-kiloton weapon. 10 kilotons is a significant fraction of that, and I think would quite easily satisfy some wacko terrorists' needs.
These weapons are known to exist and are known to be missing in large numbers. This is not just FUD. This is the world you live in.
You are making a false assumption that it is easier to bring a small scale nuclear weapon into the US through canada than it is to bring it by sea into a North Western state.
Yeah, Canada's not the way. Mexico is. How many thousands of mexicans make it into the US each year? Two trained and in-shape fanatics could get a suitcase bomb onto an unmarked shore in northern Baja, across the border, and into San Diego on foot in less than a week. No need to waste a cargo ship, even.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
What, compared to the guaranteed retaliation if you launch an ICBM? Sounds quite low-risk in comparison.
If you're trying to terrorize the country, you don't really quibble about yield. Palestinian bombers will give their lives to injure two guys at a shopping mall. In terms of scaring the shit out of the Evil Americans, 10 kilotons is just fine.
You're also missing the point, stated repeatedly, that even if caught, a terrorist organization doesn't have a territory with borders that you can nuke in retaliation. The US can't go destroying all of Palestine because some Hamas nutcase tried to smuggle in a weapon of mass destruction.
"Damn," he thought. "I wanted to exact the almighty's revenge on the Americans. I was willing to give my life, but I discovered the best I could do was kill about 100,000. I guess it's just not worth it."
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Okay, I'll grant you that a bunch of them will have them soon, it was my weakest point. You still haven't explained why any of them would actually launch against the US; witness the "giant flaming return address" theory.
China already has 20 or so nukes pointed at the US
Which they haven't changed in years; they've maintained pretty much the same nuclear stockpile for at least a decade. Despite not being a member, they agreed to the MTCR guidelines in 1991 and 1994. They've been static because they know those 20 missiles are sufficient deterrent since we wont' risk losing a city.
Now, on the other hand, they've promised to escalate a new arms race if we build the NMD, because NMD threatens the deterrent factor of those 20 missiles. They need more to overwhelm it.
Suitcase nukes are hard to make, and harder to smuggle than you might think (please see my other post for details).
See my other post for a response to that theory. I'm not suggesting they make one - suitcase bombs already exist and 80+ became unaccounted for in the collapse of the USSR and the deterioration of their military. And while it may not be all that easy to smuggle one in, it's still easier than building a multimillion-dollar ICBM and doesn't carry anywhere near the liability or accountability.
And it is easy anyway. Thousands of Mexican civilians make it across the border undetected every year. You think a couple of trained terrorists couldn't do it with a 150lb suitcase?
Ever heard of the Maginot line? The NMD is the Maginot line, except that this time it's actually cheaper and easier for the enemy to go around it. Suitcase bomb or no, a wacko that wants to nuke us is going to find a way with or without the NMD. It's just a big honking waste of money that is guaranteed to piss off the rest of the world.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Actually, they dont.
Point one:
A few other countries have NUKES. But probably only half of these have ICBMs that can actually reach the US. China has a few dozen, Russia has a lot. The other few are our european allies. India is close enough to space tech that they could probably build one. Maybe North Korea, adopted from China. Iraq if they work really hard for a decade. (Remember how proud they were of the SCUD, which had ~300km range? ) The Taliban doesn't even have electricity in 90% of their country.
Point Two: Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one? A suicide bomber is one thing: you lose one guy and you blame it on a sect you can't control. But launching a missile? In 45 minutes, the US turns every city you have into a nuclear wasteland.
Point Three. If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes - dozens are unaccounted for. You send a single suicide bomber to carry it across the border from mexico or canada by hand. You lose one guy, there's nothing for the US to shoot down, and you don't have to develop any rocket technology. And a nuke leaves awfully little forensic evidence.
The rogue nation theory is FUD and W knows it. This is an excuse to get a start on something that could eventually be a full SDI shield and W, Russia, China, and everyone else knows that, too.
The real problem, of course, is that it breaks treaties (as if the rest of the world didn't hate the US enough already) and could start a new arms race with China, whose nuclear deterrent of ~40 rockets *could* be threatened by an ABM shield. An arms race is good for no one.
Except for W's friends in the military. And his friends in the companies that make the weapons. And himself. The truth is, the arms race with China will help Bush because .he needs a big bad enemy.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Magius_AR
In the last test they did, a prototype for Star Wars failed two out of three times! So that means we get to protect Boston, but not NYC and Washington!
Not only that, but each test cost $100 million! They should just give me all that money, and I'd send Dubya a copy of the Phantom Edit!
Also, why is it not called the "Missile Command" project? Star Wars is all about Jedis vs. Sith and blowing up huge things like the "Death Star". Oooh, maybe an even better name would be the "Allan Parsons Project"?
when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke. And next time you remember that before making another insult
You're damn right I've been trolled, atleast you recognize your position for what it really is.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Maybe if you want to prove him wrong, you should go read up on the Congressional testimony taken around that time to see if those statements were really made before Congress by that KGB agent? You can probably find links to this kind of thing at www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.
To the topic at hand though-- I think getting a nuke into the US (be it van sized or suit-case sized) is FAR too easy, be it from Mexico, our own Pacific or Atlantic ports, or Canada. Never minding the thought of ICBM's raining down on us.. I do support Bush's push for a 'defense shield' however, because honestly it's the best solution for the current problem:
Rogue states, be it North Korea, Iraq, or any other, can purchase on the black market (or elsewhere) or manufacture ICBM nukes capable of reaching our shores, but only in SMALL quantities.
Now we're supposedly disarming anyways, right? That's what all of the treaties thus far are for, disarming and not proliferating new nuclear weapons, right? So why not allow the design and deployment of a 'shield' to defend against small-scale attacks (5-10 missiles, maybe a few more, but less than 100)?
It seems our greatest threat isn't from Russia or China (who either have treaties with us, or simply don't want to face a full reprisal if an attack is launched), but from smaller nations that use one of the tactics above to acquire nuclear weapons technology and a launcher that can hit our country. We need to defend against this, and I fully hope Bush plows ahead with it.
Now one thing that hasn't really been suggested by either the media or the President has been possibly quelling some of Russia's issues with the shield by sharing technology with them and perhaps even installing (or helping install) a similar shield in Russia. I think this would prove to be a good faith builder, and hell, maybe they'll like the idea enough to add their own expertise to the equation, making a more reliable and safer shield overall.
The only problem with this is the thought of Russia selling or sharing the technology with China and/or Iraq or any other nation we view as a 'rogue' state, or have set to an unfriendly status currently. Plus it doesn't help that Russia has this habit of having technology sold by it's scientists to the highest bidders behind their leaders backs..
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
We are at peace with our allies, and they're our ALLIES, hence the reason why we don't sit around actively considering war with them or preparing for it. We have treaties and the MAD (mutually assured destruction) state of nuclear affairs to keep China and Russia in check-- this leaves the smaller countries that are either just emerging with nuclear weapons and/or ICBM capabilities, or that are actively pursueing it, or the individuals that have oodles of cash or backing and the ability to acquire nuclear weapons on the black market. The defense system proposed by this administration is the perfect solution for this ever increasing threat.
Here's a thought--
If you're of such a great wit and intelligence, why not propose a better solution? If you're not, step away from the soap box, and make room for people ready to take action and get the job done.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Like I said, if you're such a great wit and/or intelligent, provide a better solution. I'll take your lack of any better idea as something of an indicator that you're just a left-wing zealot bent on smearing a perfectly good President's agenda. Don't you morons have anything better to do?
Please don't reproduce, your kind are idiotic and without merit, as this thread has proven.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Here's a question for you: Why would China nuke us? And if they wanted to, why would they allow themselves to be blamed for it? ICBMs can be traced, clouds of atoms that used to be a suitcase in a pile of rubble that used to be a city can't.
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
Exactly.
Anybody here ever watch Dr. Strangelove? The whole premise of Kubrick's work was that some numb-nut in the Air Force took control of an airforce base to enforce his ideology by provoking a war with the Soviet Union. Not withstanding the fictional nature of that work, accidental launch is a serious problem.
"Uh, gee, Mr. President. We didn't mean to launch that nuke. Can we just work this out instead of you nuking us back?"
"drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke"
Thank you for mentioning the utter stupidity of thinking that people who wanted to start a nuclear war would use missiles. They wouldn't. They would bring nuclear weapons in the way cocaine is brought in.
Missiles are a way for powerful interests to get government contracts that are so secret that the taxpayers cannot see how much money is being made, and wasted.
Next time, I hope we elect a president who is smart enough to run the country, and not just sell it to the highest bidder.
Bush's education improvements were
Don't ignore this very real threat, my friends, before it's too late.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Now, I'd like to see one of those solar powered planes carry one of those nuclear warheads...THAT would be cool technology.
/* ---- */
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7)
As far as nuclear war goes, the first attack that goes through and well...this planet is fuct.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
The problem with reducing arms is that there is no guarantee that any nation agreeing to the arms reduction will actually reduce their arms. Hell, there is no guarantee that WE ever reduced our arms even though we agreed to years ago. Countries (including the US) can put on whatever front they want to put on for the media, UN (powerless) inspection teams, etc but the fact remains that there is not enough power in the UN or NATO or EU or any other group of countries to completely force a reduction of arms of any sufficient magnitude.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
I will agree that it would be silly (by our definition) for any nation to use a nuke against the United States, but does Michael honestly believe that other countries DON'T have strategic ballistic missles AND don't have someone in charge who might not have the same definition of the word "silly" (READ: Taliban).
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
This is a widespread mistake. Money spent on weapons do create jobs. However, money spent on almost anything else create even more jobs. Skilled people employed by weapon companies would not have trouble to find jobs in other places, where they would be much more useful to society as a whole.
"I don't doubt for a second that Dubya would launch a nuke to "warn" the enemy that we can destroy them with minimal damage." I really hope you are kidding. The only use for this missile defense system is to keep extremist nations from holding ANY other nation hostage.
"(example: Pakistan invades India, starts a mass genocide campaign... the US steps in and nukes a strategic military installation in some Pakastani mountain somewhere, Pakistan immediately withdraws all troops from India). " Are you trying to use this as an example against the missile defense system or for it? I clearly see this as a reason for it. Take Iraq for example, if they ever do develope a ICBM and there is no missile defense system, the world at large would be powerless to stop them from invading which ever small country they wanted to, due to threat of nuclear attack. The MDS is to erase that threat against the US or anyone, and that is a bad thing?
Sorry, the most common argument versus a defensive system is the old "terroist with a suitcase" scenario.
How original, how stupid.
First, they won't bring a nuke. They will bring a chemical agent. Nukes of that nature are not easily within the reach of 3rd world powers, let alone terrorist groups.
Next, its these wacko nations that WILL launch a ICBM if they can at us or someone else. Usually if they are willing to go nuclear means they don't give a rats ass who knows they did it. Some would do it just to strike at a "religous" enemy, others because the leaders are suicidal.
Now, what an ABM system does offer is a system which can be sold to other countries that are under threat of a missile based war. What is does offer is a means of getting Russia to finish removing her ICBMs in agreement with us. What is does do is take the threat of ICBMs away, reducing us to the detection methods used to stop infiltration of chemical/biological/nuclear agents.
Put it this way, if that suitcase threat was so great and such an awesome reason to NOT build this shield, why haven't any of these so called "Scary terrorist" done it yet?
The one excuse I always read versus the missile defense systems is this "suitcase", yet why hasn't it happened yet?
(btw - you would be very scared if you knew just what the government has the ability to track entering this country) Don't get fooled, the FBI takes it damn serious, and they do have toys we can only dream of.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Here we've got a double post: one interesting, gee-whiz feat of solar engineering, totally with merit, and well worth reading about (even if a better link to story could have been found). Unfortunately, this story will be buried under an avalanche of comments posted in response to another feat of engineering, with much more heat attached to it, if you will forgive my rotten play on words.
Perhaps we could split this into two seperate stories?
Congrats to the NASA team on their accomplishment.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
All advanced civilizations who aren't bent on world conquest start building SDI's and then selling them off for some extra cash to afford higher luxeries for their citizens while their space ship journeys to alpha centauri.
No, no, there is a difference between "I don't understand what he was saying" and "-1 flamebait"
When I saw the comment regarding crossing the border with a suitcase nuke, I immediately thought it was a reference to the recent case of Ahmed Ressam. I didn't think these things actually existed.
I guess it was bigger news here...
I think it's great that we're seeing more and more solar technology being developed for different uses - however I think that we need to see more solar technology being used in construction.
There should be no excuse for new buildings to be built without solar panels in the roof to try and capture as much of the sun's rays as possible as "free" energy. Imagine how much this could ease the burden on the world's energy providers, then again, why should they promote this technology - they're the ones making the cash.
I know a lot of houses do exist with solar panels, but I still don't think there are enough - at the moment they are predominantly in "sunny" areas - but I'm sure there are still benefits to be gained in some of the cooler climates...
-- Pete.
Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
The US certainly did pick the job of Cop Of The World(TM). Even the a cursory glance at history will provide ample proof of that. It had more to do with the fortune of being a western power in a hemishpere seperated from most of europes challenges. And the blessings of industry and certain other resources that my ancestors had the good sence to steal from the people they slaughtered.
This is in many ways what contributed to the US's national identity. In general I think citizens of the US have felt much less a part of a larger world (while this is probably less so, I would say I think this is still true even if more muted). There is also an attendant feeling of not so much invincibility, but security, a safe, warm feeling that comes from viewing other peoples problems from a comfortable distance and being glad they aren't yours. Naturally the cold war shattered this ideal for americans. Their, my, whatever, government lied to them and vastly overstated the Soviet threat to excuse all manner of weapons expansion and development programs. Quite frankly it wasn't until the 80's after the soviets had all but buried the smoldering remains of their economy that they achieved their goal of near parity. Why even the much vaunted space programs were little more than palatable PR for ICBM development programs, and groups of engineers on opposite sides of the world exchanging high tech "fuck you"s. But for all the fear, and duck and cover drills, this system of two teams with too much on the line to actually start fighting provided enourmous stability. No one really got to be all that neutral. Ya had to pick a side, ya didn't have to like it, but ya had to choose.
In a world free from this threat the US might well have attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-war era and merily resume its isolationist America first policies. Was there a componant of america that wanted war with the axis powers? No. Not a single segment wanted war. However, there were those who knew the reckless, even insane, but certainly brutal policies of the axis powers would inevitably lead to war. Even Japan foolishly expected to buy oil from the US which likewise expected Japan to use that oil to wage an illigitimate war. The US knew full well, that the goal of Japanese military leaders, if not the actual will of the Emperor and people, was total domination of the eastern pacific, whos vast resources might vault them into an industrial power to rival the US. Likewise the US saw Japan as a thug experienced in bullying, and not one to be taken lightly, yet certainly not a "superpower", and besides there is a whole empty ocean between the two countries. This is where the military brilliance of the Japanese shined. They didn't ask what could or could not be done, that asked what must be done, and set out to do that. The "proof of concept" the British provided was as different from Pearl Harbor as Goddard's first liquid fuel rocket was from Sputnik. It took an attack of a foreign power on american soil, not just the killing of americans, to bring the US into the war. As to your allusion that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was the target: "Hindsight is 20/20, but everone sees only what they're looking for anyway." The simple fact is the raid on Pearl Harbor was spectacularly improbable, which is why it was a surprise. No one thought the Japanese even capable of such a feat. But with the end of the war, the US was inclined to attempt isolationism again, then came Korea, shortly after which the French needed assitance in Vietnam. Which in the intrests of our isolationism, we stupidly afforded.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
You argue yourself into a corner....
...Yes, a country might actually USE a suitcase nuke. But, as you say, having an ICBM makes you a member of the "nuclear club", i.e. a country that uses the presence of nukes to its own geopolitical advantage.
The ONLY country ever crazy enough to use nukes is the US. period.
"Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
I believe the "huge, deadly, flu epidemic" you're referring to was in fact the 1918 "Spanish Flu" Influenza epidemic that killed between 25 and 40 million people.
And the problem with that limited range is...
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Oops... should have previewed. And the problem with that limited range is... ?what again?
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
You forget that a SDI system would be valuable if a missle carrying nuclear weapons was accidentally launched from a country such as Russia (you remember how faulty and outdated their equipment is?). I'd personally feel safer knowing that in the unlikely occurance of an accidental strike, we could stop one of the world's cities from being wiped out.
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
> France - Mainly short range but do have ICBM capability - You can bet US knows where they all are at any time
I'm not that sure the US knows where french nuclear submarines are at any time. they are smaller and far less noisy than Ohio class equivalents. but have nuclear warhead missiles too (M4-5 ICBMs).
what is ridiculous is that i really wonder why France will launch those missiles against the US. It's senseless !!!
> China - These guys are the only REAL nucleat power left other than the US - ICBM's and well mainitained - huge conventional forces HOWEVER China is the least likely to use the weapons as it doesnt fit with their national Psyche or their view of the world - they are by tradition a defensive nation and thus these weapons are seen as defensive only.
i'm not that sure too about their "defensive" views... especially considering Taiwan. what i am sure is that they are smart enough not to start a war in which they'll loose lotta people. they are far from able to avoid any of the US ICBMs that would be launched against them, nor to destroy them before they are launched.
so i agree ! Nuclear Weapons are the least of the world worries !!
>Good Point - Forgot about the french subs - but the US and France are allied and france developed the capability against Russia - still wonder why they havent decomissioned them ?
in fact, the french nuclear weapons were re-deployed after the end of the cold war. those aimed specifically against the USSR were decomissioned (ground-ground ICBMs at Plateau d'Albion), and focus was put on nuclear subs, which are aimed at any target. but still, i would really find odd that they would be used against the US, although it's possible...
How much could a terrorist accomplish by turning our financial district into a wasteland, say around 11:30 AM on a busy tuesday? I'm certain it would be more useful to them than turning the entirety of Pearl Harbor into glass.
And what are the potential effects Moscow (and surrounding areas) face if this system is ever used? Certainly beats being blown up, but probably not by that much.
If these weapons are used outside of the atmosphere, how can the ABM treaty guarantee that this shield is only protecting Moscow?
And to add my two cents to this discussion...
Not only will they be less likely to attack because they know our defenses would most likely thwart all but an all out world annhilating nuke attack (considering 10 years from now once the star wars program has yielded highly reliable defense systems), they will also be MORE likely to play nicey nice with the US to gain some of the similar defense systems for their own country. The reason every one else in the world is pissed about it is because they know their own ignorant populations won't or can't afford to build such defenses, and therefore they don't want us to have any more power than them. This leads them to saying how evil and bad an idea this is, when in reality, it's the best thing our country can do. Being able to shoot down a nuke with a non-nuke, is a lot better than a retaliation 'nuke for nuke' defense police. (Hence the reason there even was a cold war in the first place.)
People who are in power in religion realize religion is about controlling the masses by focusing their rage on some other group, Not Your Religion. Religion has now been reduced in "modern" countries to a quaint anachronism of harmless belief, being replaced by politics (which religion was all along) which replaces God with The People, and Not Your Religion with Those Evil Businessmen. Oh, also in history, those Not Of Your Race.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Although I support SDI, I would like to point out that "the scientists" opposed to it didn't mean that you couldn't shoot down one missle. Of course you can build stuff to shoot down one missle, or even many or most missles. That wasn't the reason they thought it wouldn't work.
They meant that in an all-out exchange of thousands (or tens of thousands) of missles, some would always get through no matter how good your shield. If 99 of 100 are destroyed, a very good job from an engineering standpoint, you've still got 10 up to 600 (1% of height of cold war totals) that would get through, and that would still lead to millions or even billions of deaths.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
How quickly we forget. Did it ever occur to you why China wanted a lot of US firms to locate manufacturing facilities in their nation after years of spying out our nuclear secrets? It's because they have the technology to make the bombs but lack the more mundane know-how of how to deliver them. I hope I'm wrong, but this may not seem too silly in a few years.
And remember, politicians do silly things all the time. Bill Clinton even dabbled in philology when he challenged the meaning of "is".
T-Bone
"There has never been a government bureaucrat anywhere who had a purpose other than trying to justify his job."
- H.L. Mencken, Man vs. Men
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
OK, so we want protection against a "rouge" nation and their supposed nuclear arsenal... is that really what we want? I think Bush wants to start some new controversy, which he can hopefully come out of victoriously, as if he loses, we all die. Think about it this way: today, America is the richest country. We have the technology (if the gov. admits it or not) to put up a defense system. If we do such a thing, and it starts an arms race, the already poor countries are going to lose even more money, and therefore have even more motivation to put our defense system to the test. Now, suppose they are smarter than that, and they form an alliance against the US, similar to the weaker members of the "Survivor" group did to kick off the real survivors and give them a chance at the win. Just think if two countries like Russia and China, who already have little respect for the value of life (just look at those Nike plants in China) get together and decide they are going to go against the US. We may end up "winning," but what would we win? Half of the globe would be a smoldering pile of ashes and the other half would be suffering from all of the radiation and fallout. I voted for Bush and I think he's a good guy, and if he wanted to develop a global missle defense system that would shoot down any ICBM ever launched, then that would be a good plan. Making one only for the US just makes resentment from other countries higher, and pushes the limits of their temper, which alone is not so scary, but together, some of those countries could do some serious damage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
Sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I remember that video game for the arcade... Missle Command. Man, I'm getting old.
God spoke to me
Ring... Ring.. George: We get signal! George: Main screen turn on! Wayne: Hello Gentelmen, you are on the way to destruction, make your time... All your base are belong to us. George: Someone set us up the bomb! Random Cabinet member: What you say! Ugh, it looked too familiar. mod me down, go ahead, you suck
God spoke to me
Just cruise a boat loaded with a nuclear payload through international waters and cruise towards the Pacific seaboard of the US. Detonate as close as possible, possibly with a short range missle. I really don't know the budget of these "rogue nations", but I'm guessing buying a boat is a hell of a lot cheaper than an ICBM.
Actually, current NMD plans call for ground-based radar stations. No space-based.
"Not to mention that the destruction equipment (lasers, explosives, etc.) aren't required for asteriods. All that is require is a simple delta-v."
No lasers or explosives involved, either (unless you count the rocket fuel). It's a kinetic-kill vehicle. At any rate, though, the nearer the detection, the more acceleration you need, and in order to get monstrous acceleration/jerk/etc., you'd need to use (wait for it) explosives.
And if our detection equipment is as poor as you've mentioned, then perhaps improving the other half of asteroid defense isn't such a bad idea.
China is more likely to have missiles tasked on Russia who they share a massive land border with, and with whome they have had far from ideal relations.
Lets come down to it, a country with the ability to create a single nuke wouldn't want to take on the US except through third-party terrorism. If a country attacks the US, then the US can retaliate massively, without using any nuclear weapons.
Oh and it will be BS about nuclear detection at borders. An assembled bomb is usually well-shielded and is easily handled at no risk. The only real chance of detecting a bomb (rather than just a pile of fissile materials) would be through other means such as with neutrons.
There are plenty of places that the US govt could put that money used for the NMD project that would genuinely reduce tension.
What they don't tell you is that the star wars test was successfull in shoting down Helios... doh!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
hmm what if the neighbourhood is whitehouse or martha's vineyard or wall st
Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
But, yeah, Mexico would be a better entry point, although if I were Hussein I'd smuggle it into Washington state on a tanker. Mexican border customs is pretty tight, and getting tighter. The only reason drugs get through is the amount that gets sent. You only get one chance with a nuke.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Unless you assemble the nukes in Canada (do you know of any Canadians who actually want to nuke the US?), you have to get it into Canada first. Everyone else seems to have figured this out for themselves pretty quickly, I notice.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
My point was, the explosive yield of such a small weapon does not justify the risk/effort involved. Think about it.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Sorry my nation can't tell a good Canadian tourist from a no-good job stealing illegal immigrant. Wonder how much of a problem they have with your kind stealing jobs in Northern states? Down where I am, we tend only to be concerned with Hispanics, and I frankly don't mind them. They seem to be doing all the jobs I don't want to do.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
The risk is that the person is caught, interrogated, and the US retaliates, devastating your tin-pot country for the next century or so. I'd call that quite a significant risk for a measly 10 kilotons, wouldn't you?
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
No text.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
You think these people don't deserve to benefit from the prosperity of the US? That kind of mentality is part of what earns the US a bad name overseas. They contribute a lot to my home town and my state. I don't know many white people who are willing to do field work and factory work for rates that actually make farming and manufacturing competitive. Perhaps you think they should just all go back where they came from, do you? I can tell you, if you think they're stealing jobs here, if you deport them, they'll take the jobs with them. Ask anyone who used to work for the auto industry in Detroit where their job is now.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Do you really think mandatory unionism is just? This seems like a coercive method to create organisations that stand in the way of progress for American companies. Mexicans do more for this country than greedy whining unions do.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Then it wouldn't be a "suitcase nuke" would it?
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
For the amount of wages they get paid, their income tax would be negligible. In return, they put in a hell of a lot of hard work, and tend to buy american, since it's all they can afford. Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, create growth. The argument that they are a drain on resources is a racist lie. The argument that illegal immigrants make use of the welfare system is an even greater lie. How could they use the welfare system when they don't have social security numbers?
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Guns are a drain on hospitals, and should be banned. No argument here. Gates donates less money to charity each year than the amount he and MS should be paying in tax to the government, baut aren't. Cisco and MS paid no money at all in tax for the last two years. None. So you dupes can stick that up your illegal immigrant red herring.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
The claim that small "rogue" states are the greatest danger to the US is not only absurd, but flies in the face of Bushes self-avowed adherence to a "new realist" foreign policy, unless "new realism" means precisely the opposite of what "realism" used to mean in foreign policy terms. If Bush actually bothered to read up on the ideologies he cloaks himself in, he would understand that the nations a "realist" foreign policy would consider worthy of concern are mostly US allies. France, Germany, Japan, even UK and Canada. Of course, this would make it hard for him to put fear into dupes like you.
"Rogue" states are no more a threat to the US than Australia. They are just a smokescreen for Bushes billion dollar donations to the defense contractors who put him in office. Why do you think the US defense budget just got raised by another 40 billion? In peacetime, this is a ridiculous amount of money to be given to defense, particularly with the social problems that the US has.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Now, YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Guess that says more about you than it does about me.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
My point, however, since you seem to have missed it, is even a 4-10km area of damage would not justify the expense and risk of building and smuggling the bomb. If you are going to risk the ire of the US, you want to see a whole city bite it, not a couple of neighbourhoods.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
You are making a false assumption that it is easier to bring a small scale nuclear weapon into the US through canada than it is to bring it by sea into a North Western state. The sad fact is, our Northern friends have a much better record of policing their borders than we have of policing ours, having an estimated ten times the amount of successful interceptions to quantity of illegal contraband ratio as we do. Furthermore, the concept of a "suitcase nuke" is absurd. Such a weapon would have a relatively insignificant explosive yield. For a nuclear device to be worth the effort of transporting it to the US, it would have to be about the size of a smallish crate. Finally, if I were Osama Bin Laden, and I wanted to seriously upset the US people, I know exactly where I'd detonate a bomb. I'd place a large one in a cargo ship, and send it to Pearl Harbor. He wouldn't even have to wait for customs to check the ship out before he detonated it.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Assume (bear with me) that the missle defence system is, through some technological _miracle_, 90% effective in shooting down incoming ICBMs.
Compose yourself after resulting mirth and consider the following scenarios:
Classic MSD reasoning:
Nation X fires 100 missles, 90% shot down by Nation Ys missile defence system, kiss goodbye to 10 cities brim full of your loved ones. Nation X vapourised in retaliatory strike.
New MSD plus!!!!
Insane texan in charge of Nation Y nukes filthy commie 'rogue state', Nation X. From the ashes, Nation X gets off 10 of its missles, 90% shot down, 1 city of patriot martyrs sacrificed in the name of Nation Y imperialism.
The second scenario is why the ABM treaty was so important, is the reasoning behind many European states objecting to the missle defence system, and will be the logical basis for a new arms race.
Can Americans convince the world that they are to be entrusted with the power to erase any nation that they see fit to, with little or no concequences?
(Reagan was said to be in favour, if star wars episode 1 was feasable, of forcing the Russians into a 'limited nuclear confrontation' to be contained within Europe, thus ridding the world of godless commies once and for all.)
In practice, missle defence will be a lose/lose situation. 'Rogue Nations' will perceive the rennaisance of US militarism as an unwillingness to resolve conflicts by diplomatic or democratic means, and resort to terrorism and guerilla operations. All of which means that there is more terror coming to American citizens, at home and abroad. (Government Agents, Please Note: this is not to be mistaken in any way to be a threat against the good ol' USA. I am a peace loving citizen of a friendly, rapidly demilitarizing nation and I promise that I am not/will not be planning any terrorist action now or in the forseeable future. so don't come knocking my door down, okay.)
I'm from Israel. We have here both the first operational missile defence system (AWS) in the world and suicide terrorists.
The Arrow Weapon System (AWS) isn't perfect and despite our Central Security Service (something like NSA&FBI in Israel) successful afforts to prevent terrorism, some scums get thru.Just because a defence mechanism is not 100% effective, or just because there is an alternative way you can get kicked in the balls does not mean you should give up on that front.
Giving up on a front means you are a destiny-oriented loser.
-Omer
You can never know when or where you'll get screwed next. Have some protection for any occasion.
Bad PR?
We talking here about nuclear attack.
I am pretty sure US would annihilate Libya if only to teach others a lesson.
BTW.
Western Europe would love for US to simply disappear. Until there is a need to rescue their asses again, that is.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
a problem with missile defense is that it has to work 100%. when did a military weapon ever work perfectly?!
I find it highly unlikely that we would nuke Libya even if they nuked us first. Now, we might attack them conventionally, but I seriously doubt we could face up to the bad PR we would get in Western Europe for retaliating with nuc-u-ler weapons.
The hard and expensive part is building a submarine that the U.S. can't detect. I'm not sure what China's capability is in this arena.
Ballistic missiles do not "jink". On the downhill side they are unpowered and travelling at nearly orbital velocities.
I was merely trying to point out a flaw with your little plan. You apparently were trying to be rude. Congratulations. Doesn't success feel good?
Feel free to reply. I'm sure you'll want to have the last word. And you'll get it.
As a previous post stated, we need to "think outside the box". Most people don't understand that this system is not going to stop a war that we think is going to happen tomorrow, it's for future use. You think that there's going to be peace for the next 50 years? Get real. With China on the rise, and many other small countries getting nukes from Russia's disarmament, it's only a matter of time and I, for one, want to know that my country is protecting my ass.
And concerning threats of an arms race: We're not building weapons, we're building defenses. China *may* be building up arms against the US, but it's not like we're racing to beat them to it. We're just building a defense network. Hey, and *even if* there were an arms race between the US and China, economically speaking we'd drive them into the ground if they tried to build up arms at the rate we would. The Chinese aren't stupid, and they realize there is no chance of them being able to build up their nuclear stockpile as quickly as we could.
Sometimes I enjoy reading the rather anti-government attitude of Slashdot, but this is rather retarded. If you want to complain about the US government, why not at least pick on something worthwhile.
Take Care,
Paul.
Good Point - Forgot about the french subs - but the US and France are allied and france developed the capability against Russia - still wonder why they havent decomissioned them ?
China and Taiwan - China considers this a domestic matter and would never use nuc weapons, given the size of their conventional forces they dont need to - they are actually defensive in view and Taiwan rattles the saber in their way as well every now and then (not to defend china)
Still loopkin - thanks for pointing out my error on the french - and a good point about taiwan
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Like the dont have and wont use - they have the weapons but they wont use them
:)
Russia cannot afford for pay their troops and its questionable that their missiles would work based on current inspections showing that the rocket engines in them have become unstable and would be just as likely to blow up on the pad as anything - havent been serviced in years - Their missile submarine fleet is rotting in Polyarny (Estimated that they have 0 serviceable nuc subs and only a few diesels - their aircraft are being sold off and they havent got money to buy fuel - Plus US knows where they all are
Israel - Short/Intermediate range delivery only and these weapons were made with major US help - and the US knows where they all are
UK - As for israel although they did have ICBM's - not sure of decomissioning timetable - US knows where they all are as they helped build them
France - Mainly short range but do have ICBM capability - You can bet US knows where they all are at any time
Pakistan - If you do a bit of research you will find that at best Pakistan have short range delivery - fighter and IRBM's and it s suspected they actually have less than 10 weapons- Their major focus is India who they have been techinically at war with for over 20years - US likely knows where they all are
India - Have Mainly IRBM's - the information is a little sketchy due to secrecy - they do have an excelent Deep Water navy (now i think 4th largest in the world) and advanced military but money is tight for this sort of weaponry as they are involved in a conventional war with Pakistan - Experts suspect that they may have as many as 50 but likely 20 short range low yield weapons. - Us may have knowledge of location.
China - These guys are the only REAL nucleat power left other than the US - ICBM's and well mainitained - huge conventional forces HOWEVER China is the least likely to use the weapons as it doesnt fit with their national Psyche or their view of the world - they are by tradition a defensive nation and thus these weapons are seen as defensive only.
Star Wars remains as ridiculous an idea as it was 15 years ago - the rest of the world thought the US was kidding about this when Bush brought it back in - I mean the US Govt Refuses to make an effective stand on Chemical and Biological Weapons (hint - you have the largest arsenal in the world and continue to develop them) despite their danger, you refuse to consider controls on weapons sales to non soveriegn groups (that is Non Countries = Arms Dealers).
And thats before the refusal to support greenhouse gas controls, etc etc and lets not even go near capital punishment and its conundrums (There are 3 countries in the world that execute children - you are one of them)
Now this is NOT America bashing - i think that so many great people and ideas come from there - what i am saying is that IMHO the US govt uses crap like Star Wars to prop up the military industrail complex and major corporates (GE happens to be the biggest defence manufacturer in the world - and also a major Republican Party Contributor) - this is what they do to take your attention of other serious issues.
Come on i could as was pointed out, drive into the US from Canada with a low yield nuke in my boot and set it off in New York without a problem - in fact i would have to be so unlucky to get caught it's not funny. Not to mention it would be easy to air drop Anthrax say over a major city (it would cost a limited amount to manufacture enough to kill millions).
Nuclear Weapons are the least of the world worries - think about what all this money could be used for ? Lowering Poverty ? Creating Jobs ? Building Homes for the homeless ? Controlling Global Warming ?
hell you could use it to buy microsoft and shut
it down if you wanted to
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
A further thing, for those who are interested in what this sort of system hides - in other words the real threats to the world these days (now that nuclear weapons are invalidated as a military system)
:-
Read these links
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/bw/index.html - Bio Warfare Facts
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/index.html - Primer on Special Weapons
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/index.html - Chem Warfare Facts
Read the Bio Weapons one - the article on delivery systems espcecially - this is the threat to the world that George Bush Cannot build defense systems against
Quote from Article : -Biological agents have some unique characteristics that make weaponizing them attractive. Most biological weapons consist of living organisms (toxins are the exception) and, thus, can replicate once disseminated. A relatively small group of persons, using single individuals deployed in a military staging area, could bring about the infection of a large percentage of targeted persons. The clinical illness could develop within a day of dispersal and last for as long as 2-3 weeks. The mission and political impact of such a strike on a combat or constabulary force of 10,000 soldiers may compromise operations. In a civil situation, major subway systems in a densely populated urban area could be targeted for biological agent strike, resulting in massive political and social disorganization. Approximately 10 grams of anthrax spores can kill as many persons as a ton of sarin.
Any country having pharmaceutical, cosmetic, or advanced food storage industries will have stabilization facilities similar to those that could be used for biological weapons. The ability to disseminate the biological agent over a wide area would be limited to those countries having cruise missiles or advanced aircraft. Even the smallest country or a terrorist group, however, has the capability to deliver small quantities of BW agent to a specific target.
Now the major thing to bear in mind about the US govt and this is that (and i bet most of you dont know about this one) The US has the biggest bio warfare article on earth and maintains development of new weapons.
And the threat is nothing new. After the Aum Shriyinko Sarin attacks in Tokyo the US did a report into biological attack on a US city and its impact (there was a TV doco on this subject) and the results were fucking frightening.
One story - http://www.sciam.com/1296issue/1296cole.html - The Specter
of Biological Weapons
Think about whats being pulled over your eyes with this Star Wars system ?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Do a bit of reading - a suitcase nuke can be made for as little as $100k and requires no special equipment - it would be dirty and you might get radioactive poisoning but if you are on a jihad you wont care.
Yes they are low yield - you could get up to 10kt - BUT they are DIRTY - you would pack the outside of the fissionable device with More Uranium or spent plutionium (say an old fuel rod which would be easy to buy on the international market)
The point is you dont want high power in a city bomb - you want LOW yield to cause damage on a scale BUT also illness and sickness (Hence the dirty bit) thus overloading Emergency Services and causing maximum fear and panic)
this aint hard - as i said do a bit of reading
http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq2.html
http://www.accutek.com/~moistner/nuclear1.htm
and others
PS - US still have NUC weapons targeted at all major Chinese and Russian Targets - so your point is invalid and a little redundant as despite the media hullaballo about the plane to the contrary the China and the US have a number of treaties, North Korea cant feed their people and their weapons programme has proven to be a lot of bluster, Iraq hasnt got the money left to make bombs anymore - they are the most spied upon nation on earth, and the US border is so easy to get thru its a laugh - go for a drive to canada, last time i was in the US we went back and forth across the border a number of times and it was all on backroads with NO sign of any customs (oh look were in Canada Again !)
And last point - I AM NOT TROLLING BUT - dont poke off at China's Human rights record - The US is also criticised (as is my country of Aust) for its record as well, im not going to be seen as US bashing but you have some questionable things as well.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
And posting as an anonymous coward doesn't earn you any.
Star Wars missile defense system, which will protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have and would be silly to use...
Just because a countries political "leaders" claim they do not have any nuclear warheads or ICMB's does not mean that we should stop taking precautions to prevent attacks. If that logic was used to defend our nation we would be in serious trouble.
What you see on the nightly news is rarely the truth. Of course a nation like Russia may claim they possess no nuclear weapons. It makes them look PC, and makes us look like the 'bad guys' for building anti-nuclear weapons.
Defenses are useless if you wait until you have visual proof that a nation has ICBM's. By then it's way too late. Like the old saying.. Better Safe Than Sorry. In this case, the defenses can be proactive. If we make it known to other nations that we are prepared for a possible nuclear attack, it leads them to be less likely to attempt on. Whereas if we were publicly announcing we did not see the need for the defense, we would become an obvious target.