[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
p.s. how does MAD hold any sway over the North Koreans?
Believe it or not...they want to kill us and *gasp* NOT DIE THEMSELVES!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Believe it or not... M.A.D. has bloody nothing to do with the North Koreans. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. The North Koreans can maybe develop the capabilty to take out a city or two of ours but it's a pipe dream to think they can assure our destruction. But we can already assure theirs. Try again, Bosco.
Believe it or not... M.A.D. has bloody nothing to do with the North Koreans. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. The North Koreans can maybe develop the capabilty to take out a city or two of ours but it's a pipe dream to think they can assure our destruction. But we can already assure theirs. Try again, Bosco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it was a pipe dream that two planes could take down the world trade center. Don't underestimate their capabilities. That's how we went wrong in the first place, bosco.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
And it was a pipe dream that two planes could take down the world trade center. Don't underestimate their capabilities. That's how we went wrong in the first place, bosco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't. That's why I'm in favor of missile defense. I don't want them to even be able to take out a couple of our cities.
I don't. That's why I'm in favor of missile defense. I don't want them to even be able to take out a couple of our cities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be suicide for them to even try. MAD assures that. Unlike some other nuts, they don't think the will all go to heaven and have 70 virgins when they are killed...I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is already a mechanism in place and that we can look for other, better long term solutions.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
It would be suicide for them to even try. MAD assures that. Unlike some other nuts, they don't think the will all go to heaven and have 70 virgins when they are killed...I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is already a mechanism in place and that we can look for other, better long term solutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I already wrote a couple of posts ago. M.A.D. has nothing to do with North Korea. The term doesn't apply here. Only one side has the capability to obliterate the other side. They can only wound us. M.A.D. is about the Cold War and is potentially about China. It's not about North Korea.
Like I already wrote a couple of posts ago. M.A.D. has nothing to do with North Korea. The term doesn't apply here. Only one side has the capability to obliterate the other side. They can only wound us. M.A.D. is about the Cold War and is potentially about China. It's not about North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I already wrote a couple posts ago that you should not underestimate their capabilities. We know they have nukes. We know they have the means to deliver some. We don't know how many and how powerful. M.A.D. does apply.
<strong>shut up you power-drunk slut. if we need any sh!t out of you we'll squeeze yer thick head.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My, you're quite the charmer, aren't you?
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>What's wrong with the thread? Are you *gasp* offended??? Well, if you are...good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, did you read my post? I didn't say I was offended. As far as I can tell, you quoted Bill Maher, said you agreed with his views, then were incapable of explaining to anyone why you agreed. I was suggesting that to refer to NoahJ in this manner -
[quote]<strong>This kind of formal announcement is just for show. You are nothing more than the average attention *****.</strong><hr></blockquote>
- was a little hypocritical given that you'd created a thread to serve your own attention seeking needs.
[quote]<strong>Heh. Funny. "I don't see any other mudslinging..." laf, I wonder why...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I'm an average moron, like I said. Would you like to point out the mudslinging from NoahJ in this thread..?
[quote]<strong>Anyway, did you happen to see me limit this statement to this particular thread? Nope. Try again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...Oh wait, I see, there isn't any in this thread. So you're an average moron for not being able to spot NoahJ's mudslinging in this thread, either?
No, you didn't limit your statement to this thread, but I asked you to stop being abusive in this thread, we can deal with the other threads individually.
If anyone wants to continue this thread, please stop with the constant personal attacks.
<strong>SJO, That is all well and good, But your sources are no better than his sources and there is nothing backing up either. Just hearsay. I an not going to take greenpeace's word over law enforcement or miltary. They have an agenda that they want put forth as does the government. The government is trying to test a Nuclear Defence Mechanism. In other words, it shoots down nukes before they can kill the greenpeace folks and others in the US. What does greenpeace want with star wars? Why stop it if it saves lives in a non-nuclear way? What am I missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
what are you missing? ... how about the fact that you shouldn't take anyones word, even if they march around with guns. the very fact that star wars exists means what? we're preparing for nuclear war? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> basic political theory, security dilema, by increasing my security i lower yours, arms race, do you understand? perhaps we'd be better suited to invest our money in Intelligence, human resources, and not some half-brained Star Wars program, the technology is not there yet, the US govt knows this- so why are they doing this? ... who knows, i have to go back to work.
what are you missing? ... how about the fact that you shouldn't take anyones word, even if they march around with guns. the very fact that star wars exists means what? we're preparing for nuclear war? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> basic political theory, security dilema, by increasing my security i lower yours, arms race, do you understand? perhaps we'd be better suited to invest our money in Intelligence, human resources, and not some half-brained Star Wars program, the technology is not there yet, the US govt knows this- so why are they doing this? ... who knows, i have to go back to work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So how do you get from a model that does not work 100% to one that does? Lots of computer simulations and finger crossing?
Personally I don't care if our enemies don't like the fact that we are too protected from their attacks and that it worries them. If they don't like it, perhaps being our enemy is not a good idea, eh? It is a big scary world, and if you just lie down and say, "Oops, that might make our enemies worried that they can't hurt us any more, we better not." Then you obviously believe that them believing that they have a chance to win, or at least bring it to a draw, is better than them believeing they have no chance. If they don't like it, once more, they should pick a different enemy. The US is more than willing to ally or be on friendly terms with anyone who is interested and has anything to offer. That fact that we maintain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof of that. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
So how do you get from a model that does not work 100% to one that does? Lots of computer simulations and finger crossing?
Personally I don't care if our enemies don't like the fact that we are too protected from their attacks and that it worries them. If they don't like it, perhaps being our enemy is not a good idea, eh? It is a big scary world, and if you just lie down and say, "Oops, that might make our enemies worried that they can't hurt us any more, we better not." Then you obviously believe that them believing that they have a chance to win, or at least bring it to a draw, is better than them believeing they have no chance. If they don't like it, once more, they should pick a different enemy. The US is more than willing to ally or be on friendly terms with anyone who is interested and has anything to offer. That fact that we maintain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof of that. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
pick a different enemy? do you really believe it is so simple that our government should play chicken with our lives? The fact that we retain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof that we like cheap labor and oil. I suggested human intelligence, not some brandishing of weaponry to the world, what we need to know is where these nukes are, who has them, what are their intentions, how capable are they- not some half-assed system to try and shoot them down after they are launched, armed, and in our skies. Our enemies don't have to worry about not being able to hurt us- all it takes is 12 willing men funded by our enemies who you are so intent on antagonizing.
pick a different enemy? do you really believe it is so simple that our government should play chicken with our lives? The fact that we retain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof that we like cheap labor and oil. I suggested human intelligence, not some brandishing of weaponry to the world, what we need to know is where these nukes are, who has them, what are their intentions, how capable are they- not some half-assed system to try and shoot them down after they are launched, armed, and in our skies. Our enemies don't have to worry about not being able to hurt us- all it takes is 12 willing men funded by our enemies who you are so intent on antagonizing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like my question I asked you, only you are saying that we cannot have both, we can only have one or the other. I do not see the missile shield as a replacement for good intelligence, like I do not see satellites as a replacement for good human intelligence on the gorund. With the missile shield we might have been able to shoot down the second plane before it hit the second tower, or even before it reached New York. They had already scrambled fighters who were too late.
Let me just say this, you do not have to have one or the other, I think we should have everything in our power to make sure this nation is secure and protected. That includes the ability to shoot down missiles from madmen who do not care if the world becomes a radioactive wasteland. And do not tell me they do not exist, because they do.
it will divert monies from human resources to unproven technology - worse, it portrays a military more concerned with technology than a man in the field, a frequent criticism of our military and intelligence field
a nuclear defense shield will be no use in a war of information, a war on terrorism
Comments
<strong>
p.s. how does MAD hold any sway over the North Koreans?
Believe it or not...they want to kill us and *gasp* NOT DIE THEMSELVES!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Believe it or not... M.A.D. has bloody nothing to do with the North Koreans. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. The North Koreans can maybe develop the capabilty to take out a city or two of ours but it's a pipe dream to think they can assure our destruction. But we can already assure theirs. Try again, Bosco.
<strong>
Believe it or not... M.A.D. has bloody nothing to do with the North Koreans. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. The North Koreans can maybe develop the capabilty to take out a city or two of ours but it's a pipe dream to think they can assure our destruction. But we can already assure theirs. Try again, Bosco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it was a pipe dream that two planes could take down the world trade center. Don't underestimate their capabilities. That's how we went wrong in the first place, bosco.
<strong>
And it was a pipe dream that two planes could take down the world trade center. Don't underestimate their capabilities. That's how we went wrong in the first place, bosco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't. That's why I'm in favor of missile defense. I don't want them to even be able to take out a couple of our cities.
<strong>
I don't. That's why I'm in favor of missile defense. I don't want them to even be able to take out a couple of our cities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be suicide for them to even try. MAD assures that. Unlike some other nuts, they don't think the will all go to heaven and have 70 virgins when they are killed...I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is already a mechanism in place and that we can look for other, better long term solutions.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>
It would be suicide for them to even try. MAD assures that. Unlike some other nuts, they don't think the will all go to heaven and have 70 virgins when they are killed...I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is already a mechanism in place and that we can look for other, better long term solutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I already wrote a couple of posts ago. M.A.D. has nothing to do with North Korea. The term doesn't apply here. Only one side has the capability to obliterate the other side. They can only wound us. M.A.D. is about the Cold War and is potentially about China. It's not about North Korea.
<strong>
Like I already wrote a couple of posts ago. M.A.D. has nothing to do with North Korea. The term doesn't apply here. Only one side has the capability to obliterate the other side. They can only wound us. M.A.D. is about the Cold War and is potentially about China. It's not about North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I already wrote a couple posts ago that you should not underestimate their capabilities. We know they have nukes. We know they have the means to deliver some. We don't know how many and how powerful. M.A.D. does apply.
<strong>shut up you power-drunk slut. if we need any sh!t out of you we'll squeeze yer thick head.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My, you're quite the charmer, aren't you?
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>What's wrong with the thread? Are you *gasp* offended??? Well, if you are...good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, did you read my post? I didn't say I was offended. As far as I can tell, you quoted Bill Maher, said you agreed with his views, then were incapable of explaining to anyone why you agreed. I was suggesting that to refer to NoahJ in this manner -
[quote]<strong>This kind of formal announcement is just for show. You are nothing more than the average attention *****.</strong><hr></blockquote>
- was a little hypocritical given that you'd created a thread to serve your own attention seeking needs.
[quote]<strong>Heh. Funny. "I don't see any other mudslinging..." laf, I wonder why...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I'm an average moron, like I said. Would you like to point out the mudslinging from NoahJ in this thread..?
[quote]<strong>Anyway, did you happen to see me limit this statement to this particular thread? Nope. Try again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...Oh wait, I see, there isn't any in this thread. So you're an average moron for not being able to spot NoahJ's mudslinging in this thread, either?
No, you didn't limit your statement to this thread, but I asked you to stop being abusive in this thread, we can deal with the other threads individually.
If anyone wants to continue this thread, please stop with the constant personal attacks.
<strong>(To Exercise in Frivolity)
I am done taking you seriously.</strong><hr></blockquote>Here here. It took me a little longer, but he's now on my ignore list, too.
<strong>SJO, That is all well and good, But your sources are no better than his sources and there is nothing backing up either. Just hearsay. I an not going to take greenpeace's word over law enforcement or miltary. They have an agenda that they want put forth as does the government. The government is trying to test a Nuclear Defence Mechanism. In other words, it shoots down nukes before they can kill the greenpeace folks and others in the US. What does greenpeace want with star wars? Why stop it if it saves lives in a non-nuclear way? What am I missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
what are you missing? ... how about the fact that you shouldn't take anyones word, even if they march around with guns. the very fact that star wars exists means what? we're preparing for nuclear war? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> basic political theory, security dilema, by increasing my security i lower yours, arms race, do you understand? perhaps we'd be better suited to invest our money in Intelligence, human resources, and not some half-brained Star Wars program, the technology is not there yet, the US govt knows this- so why are they doing this? ... who knows, i have to go back to work.
<strong>
what are you missing? ... how about the fact that you shouldn't take anyones word, even if they march around with guns. the very fact that star wars exists means what? we're preparing for nuclear war? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> basic political theory, security dilema, by increasing my security i lower yours, arms race, do you understand? perhaps we'd be better suited to invest our money in Intelligence, human resources, and not some half-brained Star Wars program, the technology is not there yet, the US govt knows this- so why are they doing this? ... who knows, i have to go back to work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So how do you get from a model that does not work 100% to one that does? Lots of computer simulations and finger crossing?
Personally I don't care if our enemies don't like the fact that we are too protected from their attacks and that it worries them. If they don't like it, perhaps being our enemy is not a good idea, eh? It is a big scary world, and if you just lie down and say, "Oops, that might make our enemies worried that they can't hurt us any more, we better not." Then you obviously believe that them believing that they have a chance to win, or at least bring it to a draw, is better than them believeing they have no chance. If they don't like it, once more, they should pick a different enemy. The US is more than willing to ally or be on friendly terms with anyone who is interested and has anything to offer. That fact that we maintain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof of that. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
So how do you get from a model that does not work 100% to one that does? Lots of computer simulations and finger crossing?
Personally I don't care if our enemies don't like the fact that we are too protected from their attacks and that it worries them. If they don't like it, perhaps being our enemy is not a good idea, eh? It is a big scary world, and if you just lie down and say, "Oops, that might make our enemies worried that they can't hurt us any more, we better not." Then you obviously believe that them believing that they have a chance to win, or at least bring it to a draw, is better than them believeing they have no chance. If they don't like it, once more, they should pick a different enemy. The US is more than willing to ally or be on friendly terms with anyone who is interested and has anything to offer. That fact that we maintain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof of that. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
pick a different enemy? do you really believe it is so simple that our government should play chicken with our lives? The fact that we retain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof that we like cheap labor and oil. I suggested human intelligence, not some brandishing of weaponry to the world, what we need to know is where these nukes are, who has them, what are their intentions, how capable are they- not some half-assed system to try and shoot them down after they are launched, armed, and in our skies. Our enemies don't have to worry about not being able to hurt us- all it takes is 12 willing men funded by our enemies who you are so intent on antagonizing.
<strong>
pick a different enemy? do you really believe it is so simple that our government should play chicken with our lives? The fact that we retain friendly relations with China and Palestine is proof that we like cheap labor and oil. I suggested human intelligence, not some brandishing of weaponry to the world, what we need to know is where these nukes are, who has them, what are their intentions, how capable are they- not some half-assed system to try and shoot them down after they are launched, armed, and in our skies. Our enemies don't have to worry about not being able to hurt us- all it takes is 12 willing men funded by our enemies who you are so intent on antagonizing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like my question I asked you, only you are saying that we cannot have both, we can only have one or the other. I do not see the missile shield as a replacement for good intelligence, like I do not see satellites as a replacement for good human intelligence on the gorund. With the missile shield we might have been able to shoot down the second plane before it hit the second tower, or even before it reached New York. They had already scrambled fighters who were too late.
Let me just say this, you do not have to have one or the other, I think we should have everything in our power to make sure this nation is secure and protected. That includes the ability to shoot down missiles from madmen who do not care if the world becomes a radioactive wasteland. And do not tell me they do not exist, because they do.
it will divert monies from human resources to unproven technology - worse, it portrays a military more concerned with technology than a man in the field, a frequent criticism of our military and intelligence field
a nuclear defense shield will be no use in a war of information, a war on terrorism
but nevermind
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>