US missile-shield has some success

[Tehvisseeus]

Looks like the missile shield which the US has been developing has been having a little success recently.

[fredjacksonsan]

I'm glad they're developing it. If successful, it will make ballistic missiles less of or not a threat.

[sivic02]

*sigh* Heres an idea, instead of building defenses, why not try to stop pissing people off? Oh well, Im gathering up some nice sticks and stones for WWIV, Ill be back later.

[RSX-S777]

^Agreed, Siv. Building weapons is easy. Forging friendships is far more difficult. Thank god our sagacious leader is wasting money on missiles rather than something trifling such as education or the environment...

[taranaki]

No defence weapons systems can be said to be successful until it has come under sustained attack from malevolent influences.

The French believed the Maginot Line to be impregnable.It may well have been, however, it was flawed in that it could be bypassed,and was, by the Germans attacking through a third country.
Blocking missiles may prevent that particular method of delivery, however the kind of organisations that currently represent the biggest threat to US domestic security do not have access to such technology. It only takes one missed suitcase bomb in a crowded location to completely negate the effects of billions of dollars of high tech gizmos owned by the government. Let's face it, the U.S. was spending billions on its military in 2001, and still the system was beaten by a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists with minimal weapons.Rather than spend telephone numbers on big shiny weapons, the U.S. could be better off splitting its defence budget between public relations in the form of aid to difficult regions, and enhanced intelligence to identify and neutralise potential threats.A missile system will cost a bizarre amount of money to treat one symptom of the problem for a short time.Technology is such that it would only be a matter of time before countermeasures rendered it obsolete.If the technology exists for a fighter plane to detect hostile weapons being aimed at it, those systems could easily be reconfigured to work on a hostile missile. What's to stop someone developing a 'dirty missile', designed to release its payload in a thousand smaller warheads if it detects a defence system launch?how would the new system cope with a thousand golf-ball sized grenades filled with radioactive material or biolocical agents? History is littered with obsolete defence systems.Spending the money on eliminating
the breeding grounds for hatred could provide a more lasting solution.

[sivic02]

Personally, I think the only reason why we are doing this is because if this "shield" is put into place it will make americans feel safer about going to war with N Korea. I have nothing to base that on just figured id throw in my 2 cents...again

[Gotti]

They're defensive missles not offensive... so whats the problem?

It's like buying a bulletproof car instead of buying one with an assault rifle on the top. Just for protection, shouldn't bother anybody.

[T4 Primera]

It's a convenient way of diverting roughly $10 billion a year over the next five years of taxpayer money into Lockheed Martin Corp, Raytheon Co., and Boeing Co.

the Aegis system is also being supplied to Spain, Japan, South Korea , Norway and Australia.

A few more lucrative contracts in the pipeline. Fear and war are so good for business if you're the military industrial complex.

[dugie6551]

I don't understand why the U.S. is trying to force this down our (the Canadians throat !!). Why do we have to support a plan that is ineffective, at best.
I am gald that my Prime Minister has said that Canada will not support the U.S. on this. Besides, if the U.S. is worried about anybody firing missiles to their homeland. Maybe they should stop being a BULLY !!!! and leave everyone alone. I'm sorry, but if your going to dictate how some other country should run it's business, defense, etc... then someone is going to get upset.

Also, if someone, like North Korea is going to fire missiles to the U.S. over Canada. Where is the concern for the Canadian people (who Bush claims he is trying protect as well) when the missiles explode and fall into my backyard?

I just don't see these as anytihing else but Bush trying to bully the world into doing what he wants.

P.S. - the last time I looked, North Korea is an aleye (sp?) with China. Don't you think China will have something to say about any future military action against North Korea. Bush should be careful who he picks on.

[twospirits]

^ i agree. There has been some talk that if North Korea were to attack the U.S.A it can probably only hit the western states. But to me I doubt that as well. Since to the North Koreans they look towards South Korea as their prize and most likely will attack them before anyone else.

Now that the North Koreans have the bomb, Bush is being very careful about being too bullish with them. I doubt that he will do something stupid (contrary to what most will think about him) and attack Korea to disable their nuclear weapons. But if he does, this would start a real world war. Since N.Korea will ask China to help out and with both of them would invade the south and east (Taiwan, Japan).

Creating such a defense system will not really do any good. This star wars type of mentality will not prevent us from internal terrorist which to me are more dangerous.

TS out

[DGB454]

I agree too. I wish we would withdraw from everywhere and stop giving all the aid to everyone and let the Euro. Union do it now.


It's their turn.

[YogsVR4]

Canada can join or not. It really isn't that big of a deal. They'd be the little sister in a fight anyway.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by taranaki

No defence weapons systems can be said to be successful until it has come under sustained attack from malevolent influences.

The French believed the Maginot Line to be impregnable.It may well have been, however, it was flawed in that it could be bypassed,and was, by the Germans attacking through a third country.
Blocking missiles may prevent that particular method of delivery, however the kind of organisations that currently represent the biggest threat to US domestic security do not have access to such technology. It only takes one missed suitcase bomb in a crowded location to completely negate the effects of billions of dollars of high tech gizmos owned by the government. Let's face it, the U.S. was spending billions on its military in 2001, and still the system was beaten by a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists with minimal weapons.Rather than spend telephone numbers on big shiny weapons, the U.S. could be better off splitting its defence budget between public relations in the form of aid to difficult regions, and enhanced intelligence to identify and neutralise potential threats.A missile system will cost a bizarre amount of money to treat one symptom of the problem for a short time.Technology is such that it would only be a matter of time before countermeasures rendered it obsolete.If the technology exists for a fighter plane to detect hostile weapons being aimed at it, those systems could easily be reconfigured to work on a hostile missile. What's to stop someone developing a 'dirty missile', designed to release its payload in a thousand smaller warheads if it detects a defence system launch?how would the new system cope with a thousand golf-ball sized grenades filled with radioactive material or biolocical agents? History is littered with obsolete defence systems.Spending the money on eliminating
the breeding grounds for hatred could provide a more lasting solution.

Excellent points. My previous post was based on the thought that if a hostile nation develops missiles capable of reaching the US, it'd be a good thing to have a defensive system in place.

I heartily agree that it's better to foster an environment of cooperation and goodwill throughout the world; but realistically, that's unlikely with all the dictators, racial and religious violence, and Bushes out there.

[dugie6551]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Canada can join or not. It really isn't that big of a deal. They'd be the little sister in a fight anyway.

That is probably true ...

But I do not want any nuclear missile crap falling in my backyard (if the U.S. missiles actually luck out and hit anything other then air).

Wait ... I think Canada should have it's own missile defense system to shoot down the missiles over the U.S. that will be fired from Mexico before they can hit Canada.

[codycool]

I agree with taranaki that the weapon system will not be tested until we have sustained major military assaults. Hitlers Atlantic wall is also a good example.

We cannot insure our freedom by friendships with other countrys, I wish we could but we cannot. No civilization has done so and no civilization will ever last without military greatness. Never....