Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to How'd we get from anti-evolutionists to antimissle systems?

antimissile systems
Tom Brosz — (archived)

Well, the antimissile system is evolving, isn't it? There should be some kind of award for "Most Drift of a Thread Off-Topic." I've seen worse.

Thanks for the clarification on the NPR site. I've heard it now. Typically such links have been up to an hour long, and one has to "fish" through it for the good part.

MAD presumes a minimum amount of rationality on the part of the enemy. In the current world, we are dealing with forces that, in some cases, would think nothing of seeing large portions of their own people destroyed if they took an enemy with them. This is played out constantly on a small scale by suicide bombers and the 9/11 hijackers.

A major Iranian leader has already gone on record as saying that the awful atomic retaliation on Iran would be worth it if they could destroy Israel. Bluff? Or not? Is it something you want to bet your entire nation on? How many warheads would it take to make a nation the size of Israel uninhabitable?

Iran and North Korea are currently run by people who are many bricks shy of a load. A lunatic will shoot even when surrounded by armed cops.

"Yes the assumption is that ICBM launch sites are too big to hide, and can be sufficiently disabled before the weapons are delivered to them."

This assumes a military attack on a sovereign nation for simply setting up missiles on launch sites, something many nations have done years ago. While I personally have no problem with this, particularly in the case of nations run by lunatics, how many others here have set the bar that low? During the Cold War, that would have been a pre-emptive first strike, and would have set off WWIII.

I agree that it's equally possible that someone would slip a bomb into the U.S. in a shipping container, but just because someone might shoot you in the head doesn't mean a bulletproof vest is useless.

I also agree that keeping such nations from developing warheads in the first place is the ideal solution, and would help prevent attacks from all methods of delivery. I would have no problem with bombers taking out nuclear research facilities in certain nations. Again, how many others here would agree with that approach?

But that being said, nations like North Korea and Iran already have missile systems well along, and if a warhead was developed, it would take a lot less time for them to arm their missiles with them than it would for us to develop a defense system from scratch if we don't do it ahead of time.

I still submit that much of the opposition out there to missile defense is largely political, and based more on which party has been proposing it than how well it might work.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (76 posts)