<strong>That's not what people have been saying. What has been said is that the USSR doesn't exist so the treaty is obsolete. It addresses the concerns of another era. The world has changed.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sure that's not what you've said, but it's what others have said. Read some of the posts in this thread - they were arguing that we can't have a treaty with a non-existent country. They didn't say "the geopolitical blah blahs have changed..."
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Missile defense should be thought of as encompassing many different types of systems. Some of these are good ideas. Some probably show less promise. The ones that most interest me and would most likely be used are the ones designed for use in theatre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I completely agree with you. (And judging by its performance in the Gulf War, the Patriot still needs lots of work.) But then what's the point of getting out of the ABM treaty, which doesn't ban those types of defenses? And what's the point of building permanent base stations in Alaska?
If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.
[quote]They didn't say "the geopolitical blah blahs have changed..."<hr></blockquote>
The first comment of that lean in this
thread was:
"This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then."
That's from the second post of the entire thread.
A case of selective reading on your part that you just missed that entirely?
And that's from sinewave, a guy who no one accuses of being intelligent.
--
THT, while I agree with most of your points, I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.
Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.
And while the possibility is remote, it is an absolutely devastating possibility to the point of apocalyptic (sp?).
I'm all for big rail guns shooting down asteroids, too, I think we should be going after things like that as well.
If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.</strong>
Is this a serious question (about guarding silos)?
No code is uncrackable (which will be a very debatable statement in a few years), but the statement is akin to saying everything is possible. The possibility is remote. The possibility that a terrorist tries [a takeover] is less remote, but one can fix this with better intel, better defenses inadvertent launching and arming of said systems, and the best solution of all, not having any.
<strong>Originally posted by groverat:
I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.
Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.</strong>
Think about what you're saying in the former and the latter here, groverat.
If an antiballistic missile system isn't going to be deployed in 10 to 20 years, and if we don't know how nuclear bomb delivery systems will be deployed in the future, why are we developing the system in the first place?
My comment about the antiballistic missile system wasn't that it couldn't do its job, it was that it had too many holes in it as a defense system. Give the Russians another 10 years, they could have supercavitation perfected and it's bye bye to all coastal cities. NMD isn't going to do anything about that.
[7 hours later, after seeing TLOTR, I can finish this post.]
What I mean by "holes" is that NMD is a hugely expensive program that targets a specific thing, something that is getting less and less plentiful by the day. Problem is that a nuclear delivery system can be any manner of thing. The number 1 way for terrorists to deliver a nuke is in the cargo of an international airline flight. A semi-long range low flying cruise missile is another. In designing a system to protect against things in the future, it requires a bit of flexibility. The current NMD seems to be huge amount of money spent defending against systems that are going obsolete... and the USA only has so much money.
As usual, an impressive display of analytical thought and debating by most of you. Yet, so easily do we break down into you idiot this and you dumb ass that.
I know we now have the computational power to predict, anticipate and track missiles in flight. What we don't have and will not have for a good while to come is a delivery vehicle. Whether that be a laser, another missile or something like the railgun. Putting the politics aside for now, it was easier to put men on the moon than it will be to knock down or stop multiple targets travelling at ICBM speeds.
Anyway, isn't it weird how Pierre Boulle hit the nail on the head. We really are the Planet of the Apes. So we've traded ICBMs for sticks. The money that is going to be boodoggled off the ABM program is going to make many of you young supporters(today) bitter old people tomorrow. Well, I hope not.
Comments
<strong>That's not what people have been saying. What has been said is that the USSR doesn't exist so the treaty is obsolete. It addresses the concerns of another era. The world has changed.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sure that's not what you've said, but it's what others have said. Read some of the posts in this thread - they were arguing that we can't have a treaty with a non-existent country. They didn't say "the geopolitical blah blahs have changed..."
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Missile defense should be thought of as encompassing many different types of systems. Some of these are good ideas. Some probably show less promise. The ones that most interest me and would most likely be used are the ones designed for use in theatre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I completely agree with you. (And judging by its performance in the Gulf War, the Patriot still needs lots of work.) But then what's the point of getting out of the ABM treaty, which doesn't ban those types of defenses? And what's the point of building permanent base stations in Alaska?
If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.
The first comment of that lean in this
thread was:
"This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then."
That's from the second post of the entire thread.
A case of selective reading on your part that you just missed that entirely?
And that's from sinewave, a guy who no one accuses of being intelligent.
--
THT, while I agree with most of your points, I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.
Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.
And while the possibility is remote, it is an absolutely devastating possibility to the point of apocalyptic (sp?).
I'm all for big rail guns shooting down asteroids, too, I think we should be going after things like that as well.
If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.</strong>
Is this a serious question (about guarding silos)?
No code is uncrackable (which will be a very debatable statement in a few years), but the statement is akin to saying everything is possible. The possibility is remote. The possibility that a terrorist tries [a takeover] is less remote, but one can fix this with better intel, better defenses inadvertent launching and arming of said systems, and the best solution of all, not having any.
<strong>Originally posted by groverat:
I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.
Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.</strong>
Think about what you're saying in the former and the latter here, groverat.
If an antiballistic missile system isn't going to be deployed in 10 to 20 years, and if we don't know how nuclear bomb delivery systems will be deployed in the future, why are we developing the system in the first place?
My comment about the antiballistic missile system wasn't that it couldn't do its job, it was that it had too many holes in it as a defense system. Give the Russians another 10 years, they could have supercavitation perfected and it's bye bye to all coastal cities. NMD isn't going to do anything about that.
[7 hours later, after seeing TLOTR, I can finish this post.]
What I mean by "holes" is that NMD is a hugely expensive program that targets a specific thing, something that is getting less and less plentiful by the day. Problem is that a nuclear delivery system can be any manner of thing. The number 1 way for terrorists to deliver a nuke is in the cargo of an international airline flight. A semi-long range low flying cruise missile is another. In designing a system to protect against things in the future, it requires a bit of flexibility. The current NMD seems to be huge amount of money spent defending against systems that are going obsolete... and the USA only has so much money.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
I know we now have the computational power to predict, anticipate and track missiles in flight. What we don't have and will not have for a good while to come is a delivery vehicle. Whether that be a laser, another missile or something like the railgun. Putting the politics aside for now, it was easier to put men on the moon than it will be to knock down or stop multiple targets travelling at ICBM speeds.
Anyway, isn't it weird how Pierre Boulle hit the nail on the head. We really are the Planet of the Apes. So we've traded ICBMs for sticks. The money that is going to be boodoggled off the ABM program is going to make many of you young supporters(today) bitter old people tomorrow. Well, I hope not.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: breakskull ]</p>