Missile Defence

[Derfel]

In my world issues class the other day we talked about the US plan for Missile Defence. After some discussions we came to two conclusions, 1, that it would make the United States the only country with effective nuklear weapons, or 2, it would mean that Canada and the US would be invulnerable from terrorist attacks.
I guess you could view it either way, what do you guys think?

[Robot Jesus]

I don’t see how the missile defense would prevent terrorism attacks.

The only real reason I see for the missile shield is preparing for a war with china.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

the current way peace is that when u start a nuklear war u destroy the world a missle defense systemthat could stop said apocalspe from effecting the us might give bush or any futur the incentive to start a nuke war and kil all of human kind

[Toastburner B]

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

I don’t see how the missile defense would prevent terrorism attacks.

That, I agree with. Terrorist attacks and missile strikes are quite different.

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

The only real reason I see for the missile shield is preparing for a war with china.

Not true, IMHO. With both North Korea and Iran gearing up their nuclear programs, and the fact that have often done so in defiance of the international community, leads me to believe they are far more likely to fire a nuke at the U.S. than China. True, Iran doesn't have the range to do so, but I believe North Korea could if they fired over the pole, correct? I remember seeing a report or something like that on the news awhile back...or am I making things up? Please correct me.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

the us invaded iraq agaisnt the un's wishes

[Viper Daimao]

I think they've claimed they could maybe hit us. I havent heard any hard fact that they could. However I think we should open this missile defense system up more. Get NATO involved. Iran is for a fact working on missiles that could reach Europe. What better way to bring NATO back as a force with a direction than all of us working toward a collective missile defense system?

[Arlia Janet]

I don't think nuklear... er... nuclear missiles are really a threat that will come to fruition. If North Korea shoots a missile at anyone, they will cease to exist. You use missiles for deterrence and political leverage. North Korea wants missiles so that can be let alone to do what want to do.
“Stay back. Don’t come in here, I have missiles… and I’m so ronrey.” *




*thank you Team America: World Police

[Toastburner B]

Originally Posted by grthwllms

the us invaded iraq agaisnt the un's wishes

Oh, for heaven's sake, can we not turn this into another Iraq war thing? I believe we have all had enough of those to last us a lifetime.

But, to go along with your point, yes, we did. What that has to do with my point, I fail to see.

All I was saying is that I personally believe that North Korea and Iran are more likely to use nuclear weapons, if they had them, then China is. And the fact they have done so inspite of everyone's best efforts, everyone being the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., pretty much everyone and their dog, helped me to form the opinion above. As such, I believed that a missile defense system would probably be put to use protecting the U.S. against Iran and North Korea, as compared to China.

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

I think they've claimed they could maybe hit us. I havent heard any hard fact that they could. However I think we should open this missile defense system up more. Get NATO involved. Iran is for a fact working on missiles that could reach Europe. What better way to bring NATO back as a force with a direction than all of us working toward a collective missile defense system?

If I remember correctly, the rest of the world got mad at the U.S. because by creating a missile defense system, we broke Antiballstic Missle Treaty. Not that it appears to matter anymore, seeming as Russia is testing their own missile defense system. I guess it would come down to whether or not NATO wanted to play ball with us or not. The U.S. isn't particularlly popular in Europe at the moment. But, in my opinion, it would be in their best interest since they are withing striking distance of Iran.

[GatoFiero]

Originally Posted by Derfel

In my world issues class the other day we talked about the US plan for Missile Defence. After some discussions we came to two conclusions, 1, that it would make the United States the only country with effective nuklear weapons, or 2, it would mean that Canada and the US would be invulnerable from terrorist attacks.
I guess you could view it either way, what do you guys think?

Conclusion 1 counter argument: Missile defense technology is far from perfect. Other countries would simply launch more nukes to overwhelm our defenses. Think of it like this, even if the system had a hit rate of 99%, all an enemy would need to do is launch 100 nukes at a vital target. Statistically, 1 nuke should get through, and that’s all that matters. I wont even get into the electro magnetic effects of such an attack.

Conclusion 2 counter argument: Only if terrorists launch an ICBM from a captured government installation. It is far more likely that terrorists will take a cheap-ass cold war era ICBM, place it on a freighter, ram the freighter into a harbor, and then detonate the nuke.

Overall, I am against the idea of a national missile defense shield. However, I am very strongly in favor of developing missile defense technology for use in other applications.

[Viper Daimao]

What nation has 100 nukes to launch at us? maybe russia?

These arent easy to make, N.Korea has been working for years and they claim to have what? 6-10?

and further more, 99%, or even 50% is a lot better than 0%.