Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: U.S. Missile Defense

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Directly above the center of the Earth
    Posts
    4,884


    Default U.S. Missile Defense

    Is it a hopeless dream? Will we ever have failsafe technology to stop missiles? Will it launch a new arms race? Is it worth the cost, both in monetary terms and in terms of alienating the rest of the world? Can the money be spent better? Do North Korea and Iran pose that big of a threat?

    Do my homework for me.
    “It is a strange paradox that today’s central banks are generally staffed by economists, who by and large profess a belief in a theory which says that their jobs are, at the best, unnecessary, and more likely wealth-destroying. Needless to say, this is not a point widely discussed among respectable economists. Nevertheless, it is an issue worth pondering.”

    George Cooper, The Origin of Economic Crises

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London/Birmingham
    Posts
    5,402


    Default

    Think about it. A truck with a nucelar bomb is just as effective is a missile delivering its payload.

    Waste of money indeed.
    Vera Says:
    Masturbation > women

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cascadian Exile
    Posts
    19,600


    Default

    I would say waste of money. Especially if our only enemy is 'terrorists.'
    Quote Originally Posted by T-6005 View Post
    I do no be following, fortune prick me if I do no.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Directly above the center of the Earth
    Posts
    4,884


    Default

    Circa 2002 it would've been an easy case to win, hands-down. The problem, though, is that Kim Jung-il has nukes, and he's craaaaaaazy. THEY'RE POINTED RIGHT AT US!!!

    It's just very difficult to win over an audience when you're facing that.


    And from a strategic perspective, the mere ability to hit targets in the continental U.S. carries immense power. It severely constricts our dealing with "rogue states" if they could potentially bomb us.

    Basically as I see it, there are numerous good arguments against missile defense, but the arguments for it - the potential risks - are few, but so incredibly persuasive that they're as difficult to shoot down as an incoming ICBM.
    “It is a strange paradox that today’s central banks are generally staffed by economists, who by and large profess a belief in a theory which says that their jobs are, at the best, unnecessary, and more likely wealth-destroying. Needless to say, this is not a point widely discussed among respectable economists. Nevertheless, it is an issue worth pondering.”

    George Cooper, The Origin of Economic Crises

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Antioch, CA
    Posts
    1,065


    Default

    the chances of a missile being shot out of the air by some SA weapons is very slim, and not to mention how easy it is to store a small nuclear weapon in a car.
    ________
    Live Sex Webshows
    Last edited by lousyskater; 09-11-2011 at 01:59 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    147


    Default

    nukes dont go off at their full potential unless they detinate hundreds of feet over the ground.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Antioch, CA
    Posts
    1,065


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malumboman
    nukes dont go off at their full potential unless they detinate hundreds of feet over the ground.
    yes i know that, but a nuke can still do considerable damage on the ground.
    ________
    VOLCANO VAPORIZER
    Last edited by lousyskater; 09-11-2011 at 02:05 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    147


    Default

    considerable, true, but it would be about as powerful as three large car bombs, which are a million times easier to use than a nuke

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Antioch, CA
    Posts
    1,065


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malumboman
    considerable, true, but it would be about as powerful as three large car bombs, which are a million times easier to use than a nuke
    what the hell have you been smoking? the very first atomic bomb was detonatied only 50 feet off the ground, yet it was powerful enough to decimate at least a quarter of Manhatten. yet we have smaller more powerful nukes so it would probably have the same amount of power of the first nuke even though it is on the ground. yes, a nuke being detontated 400 feet off the ground would do more damage, but not much more.
    ________
    Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
    Last edited by lousyskater; 09-11-2011 at 02:05 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London/Birmingham
    Posts
    5,402


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malumboman
    considerable, true, but it would be about as powerful as three large car bombs, which are a million times easier to use than a nuke
    Radiation, EMP pulse.

    Also you are stupid. You can't say 'large' car bombs. You gotta give them some figure in mega tonnes. Oh shit wait you can't fit that much TNT into a car.

    Also what's so hard about flying a nuclear bomb in a cessna?
    Vera Says:
    Masturbation > women

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •