Thread: Are you prepared?

Who ever said the drills were actually for nuclear protection? Think of it from a logistical point of view- the sirens go off, kids know it's a nuke, or at least something that can't be good, and something needs to be done. People panic, it's just how we are. No one needs a school full of panicked children getting more and more frightened, so they're taught to duck and cover under their desks. If everyone is going to be vaporized, then at least get vaporized in the least frightening manner possible.

I never got the duck and cover for nukes in school, but I did get it for tornadoes. Get a heavy book, hold it over your head, and get under your desk.

As for ICBM's, many are the freefalling type. They get shot high, boosting for a freefalling re-entry. Though there are the kind that are maneuverable upon re-entry, the anti-ballistic doesn't necessarily have to be a direct hit. As long as it's fairly close, it can be damaged to such a point that it's inoperable. Obviously if it isn't a direct hit, the missile will still fall, but I'd say that a dead missile crashing to earth is far better than it exploding as planned. We can argue till the cows come home about its effectiveness or lack of, but at the end of the day, it's a far sight better than nothing. If it deters even one missile, even just as a psychological deterrent, it's worth every red cent.

Certainly- I remember in a tute, people remarking about how low-quality the North Korean missiles are, our tutor noting "you don't need to be accurate with a nuke :P

However, from what I learned, from about the 70s onward, I thought that all ICBMs has MIRVs in them- though I could be wrong on that.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

As for ICBM's, many are the freefalling type. They get shot high, boosting for a freefalling re-entry. Though there are the kind that are maneuverable upon re-entry, the anti-ballistic doesn't necessarily have to be a direct hit. As long as it's fairly close, it can be damaged to such a point that it's inoperable. Obviously if it isn't a direct hit, the missile will still fall, but I'd say that a dead missile crashing to earth is far better than it exploding as planned. We can argue till the cows come home about its effectiveness or lack of, but at the end of the day, it's a far sight better than nothing. If it deters even one missile, even just as a psychological deterrent, it's worth every red cent.

Testing of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons.

Nothing actually would be better, as we could put the money to better use elsewhere.

I'd rather have the money spent on better education for my kids than to fund companies making big bucks off of questionable technologies.

Nothing actually would be better, as we could put the money to better use elsewhere.

I'd rather have the money spent on better education for my kids than to fund companies making big bucks off of questionable technologies.

Seraphim


I respectfully disagree! Without a Defense System, we would have to spend even MORE money on Body Bags!
There are too many people in this world who wish to do us much evil. Human nature hasn't changed since the year 'Zero.' Of the first two natural born humans that we have record, one murdered the other.
Julius Ceasar once said, "If you desire peace, prepare for war!"
Without an effective defense, we could expect a 9-11 style attack on at least a weekly basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is...Naive.

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

I respectfully disagree! Without a Defense System, we would have to spend even MORE money on Body Bags!
There are too many people in this world who wish to do us much evil. Human nature hasn't changed since the year 'Zero.' Of the first two natural born humans that we have record, one murdered the other.
Julius Ceasar once said, "If you desire peace, prepare for war!"
Without an effective defense, we could expect a 9-11 style attack on at least a weekly basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is...Naive.

It's the idea that without consequences we'll do anything. Many people have it in them to do things which are not socially acceptable, but the consequences of those actions keep them from doing it. If a country or militant group knows that their attack will likely be a waste of ordinance, plus the resulting retribution that will come, they are less likely to try anything. It's like those little ADT signs people put up outside their house- it's a deterrent.

OK guys, what I'm saying is a missile defense system is a waste of money, not that we should disarm completely and hope that everyone else does likewise. I understand human nature for what it is.

Missile proliferation seems to have been an effective deterrent during the Cold war. That's fine. You bomb us, we'll bomb you. Eye for an eye, and all that. I'm not a raging pacifist.

The thing about the missile defense system is that it just doesn't work. As mentioned previously, the tests performed were for a missile launched from a know location, with a known tragetory, at a known time. Even so, I think it only was deemed a success one time out of how many tries?

Add to that the fact that in this day and age a nuke is more likely to float into a harbor aboard a ship than to be launched intercontinentally, and I therefore see this as a huge waste of money.
Remember the Maginot line? That's what I see the missle defense as being. "Hmm, they have defended against ICBMs....Let's just charter a ship!". As 9-11 showed, atacks may now take very unconventional means.

Spend the money on more troops, tanks, bullets,(or perhaps even better diplomacy/foriegn aid?) whatever you like for a more effective defense. I'm all for that. Just please don't spend it on "Star Wars" stuff that is over priced and under effective.

How was WW2 won? Through strength of arms, certainly. But also in the aftermath by putting money into helping the countries we had just defeated. Winning the peace is also important. And is also perhaps an effective deterrent if used before hostilities ensue?

Maybe someone who wants to drop a bomb on us is purely crazy, and it doesn't matter what we do, they're going to do it regardless.

But perhaps someone wants to drop a bomb on us because of what we have, and they do not have? A better standard of living, etc. If the billions spent on missile defense were spent on helping these people out, perhaps they could be our friend, instead of enemy?

When I was at Nagasaki, walking near the remains of a building vaporized by the atomic blast(shown below),a pair of young Japanese men came up to me (I'm obviously an American), one put his arm around my shoulder, while the other took a picture. We were all smiling.

Spend the money on more troops, tanks, bullets,(or perhaps even better diplomacy/foriegn aid?)

Seraphim


I will disagree 100% of the time, with anyone using MY money to try to buy friends!
Build more ships. Expand the Military. Give the Troops EVERYTHING they need, or can possibly use. But don't divert a dime to foreign countries, just 'to try to get them to like us.'

I agree to an extent, but I don't think just dropping it is the answer. It's likely a flawed system, though not useless. The system of developing these technologies is problematic to me. Put money into research like the good ol days. Give more college aid to science majors- anything to jumpstart our research failings.

Where I disagree is foreign aid. Give it to people that are grateful for it, but forget the countries that treat us like dirt, aka north Korea and some African countries. Along the same lines, don't give the aid through the UN. That way any aid given is from us and we get any and all benefits from it.

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

Spend the money on more troops, tanks, bullets,(or perhaps even better diplomacy/foriegn aid?)

Seraphim


I will disagree 100% of the time, with anyone using MY money to try to buy friends!
Build more ships. Expand the Military. Give the Troops EVERYTHING they need, or can possibly use. But don't divert a dime to foreign countries, just 'to try to get them to like us.'

Just one possible suggestion(foriegn aid) of a better use of the money than ABM.

Or, as I said, spend it on known, working technologies, such as bullets, tanks, etc.

A national missile defense system is astronomically expensive and proven to be almost completely ineffective at doing what it is designed to do. Couple that with the fact that attacks on mainland USA would most certainly not come in the form of an ICBM, there is zero value derived from the billions upon billions of dollars it requires.

From a defense perspective it is far far far better to spend that money on intelligence gathering. These days intelligence is gathered in the form of signals intelligence and human intelligence. Human intelligence is bought outright. And it is the best chance at foiling any future attacks. How many Americans could be taught fluent Arabic for a billion dollars?

Foreign aid involves a great deal more than handing sums of money to people with funny accents. If you know nothing about a country, can't speak the language and have made no efforts to foster good will, intelligence becomes a great deal harder to collect and much more expensive. China is dumping millions and millions of dollars into Africa, I wonder how their intelligence services are doing. No strings attached foreign aid doesn't really exist.

Like it or not we live in a global community. Big walls, in the form of bricks and barbed wire or interceptor missiles are not up to the job anymore.