Our President's Defense Plan

[MaxPower]

On Missle Defense:

[ QUOTE ]
"We want to continue to perfect this system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down."'

[/ QUOTE ]

So his plan is to encorage our enemies to fire nuclear missles at us. That makes sense.

I hope the missle defense system is as effective as the Patriot Missle system (Sarcasm).

[cardcounter0]

OR at least as effective as our National Defense against airplane attacks.

[The Armchair]

Exactly how else do you stop missiles? Catch them? Blow really hard and hope they turn around?

Or are you suggesting that we should let our enemies blackmail us?

Obviously, it'd be better if no one wanted to shoot something at you, but if they do, it's best to have some sort of way to stop them.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly how else do you stop missiles? Catch them? Blow really hard and hope they turn around?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I thought the goals of the missle defense system could be acheived and at a reasonable cost, I would be all for it.

It is a fantasy at this point. What makes anyone think that this system will work when we can't even get the Patriot missiles to work correctly. Once we build something that can reliably shoot down something like an Iraqi scud missile, I will reconsider. I might flip-flop on this.

Even if we had a working missle defense system, it would not be a good idea to encourage people to launch missles at us. That's like saying, "Go ahead and shoot me, I'm wearing a bullet proof vest." This seems to be what Bush is suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Or are you suggesting that we should let our enemies blackmail us?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be ridiculous.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a fantasy at this point. What makes anyone think that this system will work when we can't even get the Patriot missiles to work correctly. Once we build something that can reliably shoot down something like an Iraqi scud missile, I will reconsider. I might flip-flop on this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you forget that in the 50's people said this about putting a man on the moon. The solution is called technological progress.

PS: Go tell the Israelis that the Patriot Missile System is useless.

[nicky g]

"PS: Go tell the Israelis that the Patriot Missile System is useless. "

They already know.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"PS: Go tell the Israelis that the Patriot Missile System is useless. "

They already know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the ones' whose lives were saved by it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Once we build something that can reliably shoot down something like an Iraqi scud missile, I will reconsider.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one go about that pray tell without spending the $ to do it?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose you forget that in the 50's people said this about putting a man on the moon. The solution is called technological progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, once we progress to the point where the Patriots work, I would re-consider building the "Star Wars" system.

[ QUOTE ]

PS: Go tell the Israelis that the Patriot Missile System is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you do some research on the Patriot Missiles and then get back to me. Do a Google search.

In the first Gulf war the Patriots were a complete failure (except if you count Public Relations). They are currently better. Unfortunately, they are also better at shooting down our own planes.

[cardcounter0]

Last March, 49 retired generals and admirals, urged Bush to suspend plans for the missle defense system and use the money to secure nuclear materials abroad and ports and borders at home, out of fears terrorists would smuggle destructive weapons into the country.

>>>

SO by going forward with the current program (no flip-flops from Bush, no matter what) we are protecting Alaska from ICBM missles that no longer exist in Russia.

Meanwhile, the money that could have been spent securing nuclear material abroad (the raw material for dirty bombs) is not spent.

Also, no money for tightening up ports and borders to keep terrorist from smuggling the dirty bombs into the country.

Hopefully, terrorists are planning on building huge ICBMs in Russia and launching them at us, instead of using a rented truck, filled with fertilizer, to blow up Federal Buildings with.

[Utah]

Two comments

First - his post 9/11 plan seems to be working. No attacks so far. So, from a results oriented view his approach has been fabulously successful to date.

Two - the you fire and we will destroy you approach is founded in solid game theory logic.

[cardcounter0]

"First - his post 9/11 plan seems to be working. No attacks so far. So, from a results oriented view his approach has been fabulously successful to date."

Wrong. The reason we haven't had any attacks is because of the magic "stop attack" rock I bought from an old Chinese guy. My magic rock has been fabulously successful to date.

"Two - the you fire and we will destroy you approach is founded in solid game theory logic."

This only works if you have a well defined target that has fired against you, and you know where this 'you' that you want to destroy is after they have attacked. If your attacker is willing to kill himself in the process of attacking you, threatening him with death isn't much of a stopping force.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The reason we haven't had any attacks is because of the magic "stop attack" rock I bought from an old Chinese guy. My magic rock has been fabulously successful to date.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to buy that rock from you.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you do some research on the Patriot Missiles and then get back to me. Do a Google search.

In the first Gulf war the Patriots were a complete failure (except if you count Public Relations). They are currently better. Unfortunately, they are also better at shooting down our own planes.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one who needs to do the research. The Patriot system was never designed to shoot down scud missiles. In fact it was designed as a ground to aircraft defense system, a job which it performs quite well. It replaced the IHAWK missile system which replaced the HAWK missile system which replaced the NIKE-HERC missile system which replaced the Hercules missile system which replaced nothing but anti-aircraft balistic guns.

Now to take any weapons system designed for one specific purpose and expect it to perform a completely different function at all is an obtuse thought by a non-intellectual. The fact that it was able to shoot down airborne missiles at all is in fact remarkable.

Now get back to me with something other than CNN and Wolf Blitzer as your source for advanced technology.

[cardcounter0]

"In fact it was designed as a ground to aircraft defense system, a job which it performs quite well. It replaced the IHAWK missile system which replaced the HAWK missile system which replaced the NIKE-HERC missile system which replaced the Hercules missile system which replaced nothing but anti-aircraft balistic guns."

As evidenced by the wonderful job it did protecting us from Airplanes on 9/11. I think everyone agreed that there would have been a terrible tragedy that day, had it not been for the wonderful job the SCUD missles did.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]



You are the one who needs to do the research. The Patriot system was never designed to shoot down scud missiles. In fact it was designed as a ground to aircraft defense system, a job which it performs quite well. It replaced the IHAWK missile system which replaced the HAWK missile system which replaced the NIKE-HERC missile system which replaced the Hercules missile system which replaced nothing but anti-aircraft balistic guns.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I knew that. It was modified before the first gulf war to target missiles.

[ QUOTE ]

Now to take any weapons system designed for one specific purpose and expect it to perform a completely different function at all is an obtuse thought by a non-intellectual. The fact that it was able to shoot down airborne missiles at all is in fact remarkable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I only expect it to do what it claims to do. The Patriots that we are using now are designed to shoot down missiles. The jury is still out on their effectiveness. We do know that they accidentally shot down a British plane.

Many have cited the success of the Patriots as a reason for accelerating the "Star Wars" program. We need to be honest about how they work.

We need a defense policy that is based in reality not hopes and dreams. We need a defense policy that address the real threats that we are facing now. Bush and company keep saying that the world has changed since 9/11, so why are they promoting the same programs that they were proposing pre-9/11?

[ QUOTE ]

Now get back to me with something other than CNN and Wolf Blitzer as your source for advanced technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never watch CNN.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So his plan is to encorage our enemies to fire nuclear missles at us. That makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a missle defense system encourage a country like North Korea or Iran from luanching Nuclear tipped missle at us?

As more time passes, more and more countries are aquiring Nuclear bombs and the missles to carry them. The more countries that aquire such technology, the more likely it is we may someday face a missle attack. Not trying to figure out a way to defend against such attacks is the absolute hieght of stupidity.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
We need a defense policy that address the real threats that we are facing now. Bush and company keep saying that the world has changed since 9/11, so why are they promoting the same programs that they were proposing pre-9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]

The North Koreans already shot a missle over the Japanese islands. A missle attack is a real threat, and it exist right now.

Stu

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]

It is a fantasy at this point. What makes anyone think that this system will work when we can't even get the Patriot missiles to work correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you find it the least bit strange that you're using technology from 15 years ago to demonstrate our inability to do something today?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a fantasy at this point. What makes anyone think that this system will work when we can't even get the Patriot missiles to work correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you find it the least bit strange that you're using technology from 15 years ago to demonstrate our inability to do something today?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do find it strange. Things have not progressed very far in 15 years. I supposed we should blame Clinton for that.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
"In fact it was designed as a ground to aircraft defense system, a job which it performs quite well. It replaced the IHAWK missile system which replaced the HAWK missile system which replaced the NIKE-HERC missile system which replaced the Hercules missile system which replaced nothing but anti-aircraft balistic guns."

As evidenced by the wonderful job it did protecting us from Airplanes on 9/11. I think everyone agreed that there would have been a terrible tragedy that day, had it not been for the wonderful job the SCUD missles did.

[/ QUOTE ]'

What the hell are you talking about cardcounter?

[cardcounter0]

I'm talking about the SCUD missles. We have a shining example of the excellent work they do in the ground to aircraft protection mode. Don't you remember 9/11 when we were attacked with airplanes as weapons? I assume SCUDs will do an equally "good" job protecting us from missles also.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the SCUD missles. We have a shining example of the excellent work they do in the ground to aircraft protection mode. Don't you remember 9/11 when we were attacked with airplanes as weapons? I assume SCUDs will do an equally "good" job protecting us from missles also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean the Patriot missiles. As far as I know, at the time of 9/11 they were not deployed to protect us from hijacked airplanes. Perhaps I'm wrong on that. I haven't finished reading the 9/11 report yet.

[Utah]

Wrong. The reason we haven't had any attacks is because of the magic "stop attack" rock I bought from an old Chinese guy. My magic rock has been fabulously successful to date.

LOL. How does Bush win? If there is no attack he was simply lucky and if there is an attack he is a failure. Bottom line: there has been no attack.

threatening him with death isn't much of a stopping force.

Yep. Thanks for bringing our attention to the Bush doctrine. That's why you attack the countries that provide these terrorists safe havens.

[cardcounter0]

Oh, my mistake. Too bad the terrorists didn't attack with small fast flying missles instead of large slow moving airplanes. Then I'm sure those Patriot missles would have performed!

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
So, from a results oriented view his approach has been fabulously successful to date.

[/ QUOTE ]

It works so well with poker results, why not apply it to politics, as well.

[Stu Pidasso]

As a nation we have no defense against a missle attack. Thats a problem we need to solve. The solution is to build a missle defense system. Since there are millions of lives at stake, a rudimentary missle defense system that only has a small chance of success is better than nothing at all. It would be an error not to build it, and it would be an error not to continue to improve it after its built.

Stu

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a fantasy at this point. What makes anyone think that this system will work when we can't even get the Patriot missiles to work correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you find it the least bit strange that you're using technology from 15 years ago to demonstrate our inability to do something today?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do find it strange. Things have not progressed very far in 15 years. I supposed we should blame Clinton for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sarcasm aside (which is ill-placed, as I'd gladly vote Clinton over Bush or Kerry): Things haven't progessed due to lack of funding. But that's expected. Reagan proposed SDI in the mid-80s. By 1990, Communism was a relic, the Cold War was over, and SDI wasn't needed. In 1991, we took some surplus missiles and threw them at Iraqi junk. Until 2001, we had no further reason to reasonably fear attack via ICBM.

That's changed, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that for 10 years, there was been no applied use of interceptor technology simply due to lack of need.

But the related technology has advanced. So, it's likely that an SDI system -- most likely terrestrial, and not space-based -- would be effective if given funding now. It may take a few years, obviously, but it's hardly impossible.

[Utah]

Excellent point. However, i disagree. Also, an results oriented approach is certainly a valid tool.

Do you think Bush just sucked out for 3 years?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
"PS: Go tell the Israelis that the Patriot Missile System is useless. "

They already know.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not the ones' whose lives were saved by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got fiqures for that? Not much good against your average suicide bomber or near enough any terrorist tactic for that matter. Good for the defense industary tho.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Bush just sucked out for 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is Bush getting lucky, I'd hate to see the state of the country when he's running bad.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
As a nation we have no defense against a missle attack. Thats a problem we need to solve. The solution is to build a missle defense system. Since there are millions of lives at stake, a rudimentary missle defense system that only has a small chance of success is better than nothing at all. It would be an error not to build it, and it would be an error not to continue to improve it after its built.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is a problem that should be solved, but it is a matter of priorities. We have other defense issues which are higher priorities in my opinion.

I would certainly fund research into this, but I wouldn't neglect other areas of defense to do it. Plus, I want to see some real signs of progress. I don't trust the military tests, they call everything a success.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
As a nation we have no defense against a missle attack. Thats a problem we need to solve. The solution is to build a missle defense system. Since there are millions of lives at stake, a rudimentary missle defense system that only has a small chance of success is better than nothing at all. It would be an error not to build it, and it would be an error not to continue to improve it after its built.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

As a nation we have no defense against an alien attack. We have limited resources and we have priorities. We shouldn't be going after solutions with small chances of success when we have other areas we need to focus on that aren't complete pipe dreams.

And regarding the missile defense system that the US has been testing specifically, we should at least focus on something that scientists don't condemn as being theoretically flawed.

[MMMMMM]

A missile defense doesn't have to be anywhere close to perfect to have great value against a country with limited nukes such as North Korea.

The cost of just one major city being nuked would make the wealth lost due to 9/11 look like chump change. Saving just one major city would more than compensate for the financial burden of developing the missile shield--many times over.

It is unacceptable, IMO, to be in a position where we might soon be genuinely threatened or blackmailed by regimes such North Korea or Iran. A modest missile shield would alleviate those concerns substantially and force those regimes to adopt a less belligerent posture.


"And regarding the missile defense system that the US has been testing specifically, we should at least focus on something that scientists don't condemn as being theoretically flawed."

The scientists working on it haven't condemned it as such.

[Taxman]

I am highly skeptical of the potential value of the proposed missile shield, but I am not fully decided one way or another. One thing of which I am quite certain is that if there is a nuclear strike against the US, it will not come in the form of an ICBM (only a few nations even have that technology and I don't think North Korea is one of them). I am much more afraid of a suitcase nuke and I think our money would be best spent finding ways to defend against those.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
As a nation we have no defense against an alien attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you share a room in the pysche ward with Jokerswild? Hows he doing by the way, I haven't seen him around these forums in the past couple of days. Did nurse Cratchet take aways his computer privleges again?

[ QUOTE ]
We shouldn't be going after solutions with small chances of success when we have other areas we need to focus on that aren't complete pipe dreams.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. We have to address this problem as this is a very real and gathering threat. The absolute truth of the matter is we should be going after the solution that has the best chance of success. The reality is, this is it.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am highly skeptical of the potential value of the proposed missile shield, but I am not fully decided one way or another. One thing of which I am quite certain is that if there is a nuclear strike against the US, it will not come in the form of an ICBM (only a few nations even have that technology and I don't think North Korea is one of them). I am much more afraid of a suitcase nuke and I think our money would be best spent finding ways to defend against those.

[/ QUOTE ]

North Korea and Iran are very close. Its only a matter of time. As they are working on there missles we are working on our missle defenses. Its a race.

Stu

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
(only a few nations even have that technology and I don't think North Korea is one of them)

[/ QUOTE ]

NK ICBMs/Nukes (http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nk-nukes.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
I am much more afraid of a suitcase nuke and I think our money would be best spent finding ways to defend against those.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that is a very scary scenario. Solutions are being worked on for this and some are already in place. But its just too premature to just not research ballistic missile defense.

[Taxman]

Nevertheless, these are nations we're talking about, not terrorists. The surest way for these nations to encourage a full fledged invasion by not only the US, but many members of NATO and the UN is to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. Even if we invaded them, they still would have no cause unless we used nukes too. Now I'll grant that there easily could be wackos in both governments (or rather that there certainly are), but I'm still not sure that they would be willing to essentially offer their country up for a few decades of foreign occupation. Terrorists on the other hand can attack with relative impunity as they are not specifically a part of any one nation. If they were to attack us with a suitcase nuke (and that would be how they would do it) all we could do is escalate "the war on terror," which while a necessary action, has arguably only heightened resentment of the US. ICBM nuclear attacks are a worry, but we have many more pressing concerns.

[Taxman]

Thanks for the link, though it says that the ICBMs are only suspected. Even if they have them, I still don't think there as big a worry as some people think (see my post below).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The surest way for these nations to encourage a full fledged invasion by not only the US, but many members of NATO and the UN is to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be alright if we sent a few nukes their way instead if such a thing happened? Hopefully your reference to a full fledged invasion mean a full fledged invasion of nukes.

[Taxman]

I would be against such a response in principle, but perhaps for it in the heat of the moment. Either way, launching a single nuclear missile at the US is as good as signing off the continued existence of your country as you know it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be against such a response in principle, but perhaps for it in the heat of the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So an emotional response is ok and not a reasoned one? If you have nukes and aren't ever willing to use them what good does it do to have them? Are you for dismantling the entire U.S. nuclear arms capability irregardless of what other nations regarding their nuclear arms capability? If you're never willing to use nukes under any circumstances whatsoever then you're basically saying that you want to dismantle the U.S. nuclear capability unconditionally. Scary.

[Taxman]

Yes I am in fact for the dismantling of all US nuclear missiles. They are a reprehensible force in the world and we possess enough firepower without them to level north Korea dozens of times over. Nevertheless in the current world climate, I think it may be necessary to retain nuclear missiles, but I sure as hell wish it were not.

I am also in fact in favor of a very well reasoned response to an attack and I made my comment more because I knew you'd jump all over me for not supporting nuclear weapons, just like you do for anything I say that is not as relevant to the issue at hand (thus alowing you to sidestep that issue). When you say that we should respond with a nuke for a nuke, you're saying that you support the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents instantly, plus many more from radiation poisoning (not to mention the ruining of the land for years to come). Scary.

[MMMMMM]

"Yes I am in fact for the dismantling of all US nuclear missiles."

Taxman, you apparently do not comprehend what would happen if we unilaterally dismantled our entire nuclear deterrent capability.

We would soon thereafter be forced to surrender--by whichever large country decided they wanted to take us over and steal our resources and land. Russia might well see it as a way to solve their economic woes and second-class superpower status once and for all. And if they didn't, China would likely do it as soon as they felt ready enough, and with the advantage of nukes vs. no nukes, plus a MUCH larger Army, they sure as hell could do it if we retained no nuclear deterrent capability. In fact the mere threat of nuclear annihilation might be sufficient to force our unconditional surrender--and if it weren't, all they'd have to do would be nuke NYC, DC, and a few other major cities and what choice would we have?

Pardon me but I think you are looking at the world rather naively.

[Taxman]

You must have missed the part of my post where I said, " in the current world climate, I think it may be necessary to retain nuclear missiles, but I sure as hell wish it were not." Perhaps I underemphasized this point. I know the younger posters here are easy targets for calling naive, but I am pretty jaded for my age, so don't you worry.

Funnily enough it seems that if only one country had nukes, they could rule the world without using them, but when many countries have nukes, they still don't use them except as a deterrent. If a small rougue like North Korea or Iran were to break this tenent, the bigger badder nuclear powers would probably all have something to say about that (thus unless they are stupid, they won't use them either). An eye for an eye is never a good policy however IMHO (meaning nuking a city after they have done the same). Just because they've killed a million of our innocents doesn't mean that we are justified in killing a million of theirs. Should we have gassed the Iraqis after they did the same to us in the Gulf War? There would be plenty of more humane ways to swiftly and easily kick their asses.

[MMMMMM]

I caught that part of your post, Taxman, but the former sentence seemed the more strong so that's the one I went with. Sorry if I misread your meaning-I just chose the one that seemed more strong although I did wonder a bit at the seeming contradictory nature.

Eye for an eye sucks but unfortunately, given human nature, history and the state of the world today it is seemingly necessary to have that option for deterrence purposes.

[Taxman]

The mistake is understandable. I should have been more clear. I do at times struggle with my idealist vision of how the world should be, but ultimately I try to remain tuned in to the realities of the world (I hope adios doesn't have a 12 page response to that comment). Is it possible to be both an idealist and a realist? Of course even the "realities" of the world can sometimes be subjects for considerable debate (as this forum demonstrates).