Jump to content

Missile Defense -- Who needs it?


allthumbs

Recommended Posts

Tactically, the countries that have the capability to hit us (e.g., Russia, China, etc.) have enough missiles with enough multiple warheads to get past a defensive missile shield (remember, only a handful of missiles need to get through and these countries have several times more missles than we would have defensive missiles).

 

The "renegade" countries with nuke missile technology cannot deliver on ICBM's. So, they would have to deliver a nuke by low-tech (e.g., plane, ship, truck).

 

Thus, I cannot see the tactical advantage of a missile shield.

 

But, I think there are 2 main "unspoken" reasons why our gov wants 'em:

 

1 - Plain and simply, intimidation. We will have something they (THEM) do not, another ace-in-the-hole, "We've out-teched your sorry butts and there's nothing you can do about it - WE RULE! Fear us, you Commie bastards!"

 

2 - I think there's a more nefarious side to all this. I strongly suspect the so-called "Missile Shield" will also have other capabilities (including "first strike") our gov will not disclose. I think there's going to be a way to tie in the Missile Shield with a satellite, computer-controlled, targeting system that will have the ability to precisely deliver nuke and non-nuke missiles any where we choose. Buried among all the $$$ being spent on this project will be increased surveillance and targeting capabilities. This Missile Shield will be the ONE SYSTEM to finally pull it all together.

 

But, heck - what do I know?

 

trask bigdrink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And shovels of cash to some some well-heeled industries. Why do folks yelp so much when money is wasted on the low end of the scale (health and human services) but not when billions are involved for the military? I'm for a strong military to protect us, but this is one big boondoggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also read that it is thought complimentary with the Rumsfeld doctrine of complete dominance over both friends and foes alike. As you put it, we will have something they don't and this may be intended to threaten our friends in Europe just as much as it is intended to threaten our not-so-friends in other parts of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself, whitey. What're you, some kind of racist? You making fun of DFA's heritage, that it? madgo_ron.gif

 

grin.gif

 

And hey Trask, don't forget raison trois, i.e. boo-coo moolah in the pockets of Bell, McDonnell-Douglas, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, et. al. The pigs are certainly lining up at the trough as we speak!

Edited by Dr_Flash_Amazing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that we have fewer friends in Europe than we think. Besides, they all talk funny.

 

4.5 percent of the worlds population (the US) uses 25% of the oil resources and about one-third of all the raw materials consumed each year. Think of it: less than 1/15th of the population of the world requires about five times its "fair share" to maintain its inflated position.... there's bound to be some hard feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't they realize the real weapon of choice for total dominance? Infiltrate Iraq and install satellite television, broadcasting american tv 24/7. Works in other countries trying to keep their traditional ways, just look at Bhutan. Cable television, man, it's all about cable. You'll be installing McDonalds on the Tigris in no time flat...or are they already there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about an EM pulse from another country? No casualties except for our beloved modern day convieninces (electricty, electronic gadgets, microwaves, televisions, computers, internet, cars, etc.).

 

I could see how this might be a serious threat, something that a terrorist might strive for. It would cause economic disruption on an unimaginable scale. North Korea could easily have US by the shorthairs. How does the US retaliate for this type of attack?? No one was killed, and reciprocating with the same kind of attack on a country that is still in the stone age as compared to the US would not achieve anything politcally or militarily for us. I think this is a big issue, and a big reason to have an ABM system that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...