Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why is this bad?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PATSNUTme, Jun 6, 2007.

  1. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +162 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I cannot figure out why people in this country would be opposed to a missle defense system? Why is Russia and China oppose to it?

    It is a defensive system. It is not an offensive weapon.

    I think I know why Russia and China are opposed to it. But, I cannot understand why any American would be. If a terrorist or a rouge nation fired a missle with a nuke warhead and we shot it down saving a major US city, isn't that a good thing?
  2. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    It's bad because it makes the world more unstable and dangerous by provoking Russia and China.

    Before when no one had defense, it was mutually assured destruction. There was actually a certain level of safety because of this.

    Changing the balance of power ends up escalating to even more destructive weapons, and increasing the likelihood of using nuclear weapons by either us or other superpowers.
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,517
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +398 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Defensive missile systems are not bad. They're good.
  4. 363839

    363839 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Because it gives us inconsequential first strike capability.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    If we can defend ourselves against one type of weapon, it creates a market for other types of weapons, e.g., suitcase nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and weapons systems that can overcome the missile defense shield (which Russia claims to have already developed and tested), etc. It will create new opportunities for arms suppliers and developers worldwide. I don't think it will make us any safer. The goal should be to eliminate nuclear weapons as part of the military arsenal altogether. As is, any country like Iran or North Korea I believe are deterred by our ability to respond with superior force. If terrorists manage to get hold of batteries of nuclear missiles and keep them hidden, we might need to reconsider.
  6. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Isn't amazing how fools never learn from history..? The same usual group of sky-is-falling liberals said the exact same things 25 years ago when good ole' Dutch Reagan proposed missile defense...

    "We don't want to make the Russians mad at us..!!"
    "We don't want to change the balance of power..!!"
    "This will be a disaster..!!"

    And so on and so forth...
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,680
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +493 / 2 / -9

    Everything America does is bad.

    Liberals Hate Defense, they Hate Law And Order, they Hate Discipline, they Hate Common Sense, They despise Mother Nature, They HATE BUSH, many of them Hate America.

    Defense Missles would be a "good thing" if Auntie Pelosi suggested it.

    Liberals don't understand that America's enemy's don't give a sh!t what they think.
    :bricks:
  8. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,710
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +38 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    I thought Patter's reply was pretty good in that it explained in detail why he would oppose missile defense. I'm on the fence, but do see where it would cause an escalation of nuclear weaponry. I see this administration absolutely saying one thing (opposing other countries nuclear capabilities) while increasing our arsenal. Now, that's where your 'fools never learn from history' comes into play.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,517
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +398 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Nice old school thinking on MAD, guys. Do you actually think Mutually Assured Destruction is a good stratregy when one side WANTS to die ? Destroy middle easterners and they'll praise Allah for the right to have died for him on their way out.

    If they wanted to live, like the old Soviets, it could work. In today's world - nope.
  10. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Except it's the same bankrupt arguments recycled from the 80's. Hey, they want to bring back gas lines of the 70's so why not some liberal nonsense from the 80's as well...?
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    Well then don't you think those countries in question, via their opposition to said defense shield, would have an obligation to ensure that rogue nations, or sponsorers of terrorism, do not aquire nuclear weapons? China and Russia have pissed on the diplomatic process of preventing a nuclear Iran,which to some, makes their objections irrelevent.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    That's assuming of course that said system was 100% effective. There is no system on the planet, nor do I think there ever will be, that could achieve 100% success. Remember, the system could probably work against a missle, or a couple of missles, but would never stop a massive strike by Russia or China.
  13. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +162 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Isn't it the job of any responsible government to secure the safety of it's citizens?

    If we have a viable missle defense system then any administration, D or R, would be negligent by not deploying it. I understand that other counties will try to find ways of defeating or getting around the system.

    But, a defensive system is a threat to no one. If other countries are paranoid about it, then their intentions should be called into question. MAD is outdated if a defense can be deployed.
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    Iran is pissing on the world and is building nukes as we speak. Deterred? :rofl: North Korea pissed on the pact they had with us as soon as they signed it, and only now agreed to again "disarm" (if you believe them) because there were rumblings of insecurity around Kim Jong-Il, over the effect the sanctions were having. BTW, Suitcase nukes are already alive and real, and have been for decades now.
  15. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +162 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey


    Not yet. But of there is a system that can defend againts a few, it can be expanded over time to handle a massive strike.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    So I guess Russia built there new super missle on Monday, after deciding to build it on the Sunday?

    I can understand why those countries wouldn't like the idea. I also never expected them to hold any other position than not liking it. If Russia said they had the same, I don't think anyone else would be happy. The issue here is that mutually assured destruction still exists, and forever will. To destroy a nation of that size with nukes would require a massive salvo, which would inturn result in a similar salvo against us. No defense system would ever be able to stop such an attack, as it could only weaken it. The problem is, even one such attack, if successful only on one nation, would render the planet radioactive, and possibly uninhabitable. This system is designed against a rogue, obscure, and minor assault by a loon who would use them.
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    I guess some in here opposed our deployment of PAtriot Missles in Kuwait, SA, and Israel as a defense against Skuds right? Where I can understand why some nations would *****, I'm 100% behind a defense system. My only objections would be with costs. No blank checks, no ridiculous waste.
  18. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    No self respecting near-superpower country would allow the US to keep this tactical edge. Do you think if the Russians put a missile shield in Cuba, that we wouldn't be freaking out about it? Hell no, we would develop even more devastating weapons to defeat it. We would not tolerate the fact that another country could nuke attack us, while having a missile defense.

    This administration likes to talk a lot about 'what message are we sending' to the enemy or to others. Well, think about what kind of message a missile shield sends to other countries. And don't bring up terrorists, they fight asymmetrically, and if they nuked us it would be likely from within our own borders.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2007
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    Nothing will ever stop a complete strike. The cost, size, magnitude, and difficulty in the expansion that would be required makes 100% kill rate improbable. Think of it this way, if the Soviets have something like 500 ICBM's targeting us, plus there sub based nukes, we'd have to go 500 for 500 (plus the subs). If we hit at 90%, which would be phenominal, that would still mean 50+ nukes hitting our shores. OUCH. These puppies aren't the ones we saw on Hiroshima & Nagasaki either. These are 50-100 times the strength, with multiple war heads per missle. We're still toast, and even if some survived, the planet probably wouldn't.
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,945
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +384 / 5 / -2

    You may want to learn about the system and it's capabilities/intentions before you start tossing out nonsense that implies that we'd be impervious to a Soviet strike. This shield is entirely designed for loony toons like North Korea, and Iran.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>