What do you guys think of the Star Wars system?

[Black Dog]

The best arguments against the national missile sheild are its costs and the fact it simply doesn't work.

 

I don't think the western seabord is in danger of a nuclear strike from North Korea or anybody else because the retaliation would be massive. The Us already has that capability.

So why would North Korea build ICBMs that can hit North America?

Deterrent. two things: "Axis of Evil". The Bush Doctrine.

How's that? I have not heard anybody saying home land defence and Ballistic missile defence was an either or choice.......as I said, ABM defence was not advertised to defend aganist "other methods"

Money being funnelled into this Boeing/Rayethon welfare program could be better spent on improved domestic security and intelligence gathering.

[idealisttotheend]

I think that as long as any state possesses nuclear missiles, it is perfectly rational for any other state to seek nuclear armaments itself and defenses against them,

I agree with your statement in principle but not in practicality. The best defense against nuclear war was and is not having one side think that it can 'win' because it's defence capacity is superiour. If you think your defense system will work you will be more inclined to risk nuclear retaliation than if you are guarenteed not to have any defences and that both sides will lose.

MAD may be the sort of doctrine that seems insane in another 100 or 200 years but it works and we survived the cold war.

I repeat my assertion that terrorists are not likely to use ICBMs for various reasons, including the expense and lack of infrastucture for it. If you think about it if you shot only one ICBM it would be easy to have a human intercept it with a jet fighter (even ejecting before impact). You would be better off with a device you could move on the ground and hide until detonation.

Between nations, MAD is the best defence. Against terrorists, intelligence and vigilance is best. Missile defence does not work (even technically) against either.

[Stoker]

Because they can. Because there are many places within range of those missiles. As a deterrent to a conventional invasion.

.......Or so they can launch a conventional invasion into the South without the threat of a South Korean Chemical attack or even a United States nuclear strike.......Bring in ABM, they can no longer threaten the South with impunity.

So we have a bottomless bucket of money? Spending put into missile defence is money not available for other programs.

Do you have proof that US spending on ABM is coming at the expense of any other Hom land defence program?

So you agree with terrorism then?

I don't agree with it, but I understand why they are forced to use it........same with the NVA or Viet Cong using guerrilla warfare.

Each of those has led to unforseen stresses in other areas. The introduction of technology has repercussions. The repercussions of Star Wars are increased risk of terrorism and a new arms race.

Do you have any proof? How is it going to increase terrorism and/or start a new arms race?

If they didn't build the ABM defence, would that end terrorism and prevent an arms race with China?

No, I want Canada to stand for something besides helping PNAC take over the planet. We cannot achieve that by backing them up.

Canada make a stand Likie the old saying goes.....When in Rome, do as the Romans do

I have played monopoly. One person gets rich while others go broke and are forced out of the game. That's one thing in a board game, but certainly no way to run a country or a planet.

Yeah but everybody is trying to win in monopoly......competion being the key word.......only the ignorant think that there is not competion in the natural world.

The Chinese domestic market is growing and they are exporting ever more to other markets, so the US is becoming less important all of the time. The leaders of China also do not look at things, even economies, from the western viewpoint. They could well decide that it is politically advantageous to them to call in the debts.

The United States is the buyer of almost 25% of China's exports, the next biggest buyer is Japan and about 15%......The United States is still important.

Is it growth if I produce less income but put more debt on my credit card, especially when those things on my credit card do not produce a financial return?

In terms of GDP, is the United States growing or not? Now you answer my repeat question, then I'll answer yours......

[Stoker]

Money being funnelled into this Boeing/Rayethon welfare program could be better spent on improved domestic security and intelligence gathering.

Who said ABM is taking money away from those?

I repeat my assertion that terrorists are not likely to use ICBMs for various reasons, including the expense and lack of infrastucture for it. If you think about it if you shot only one ICBM it would be easy to have a human intercept it with a jet fighter (even ejecting before impact). You would be better off with a device you could move on the ground and hide until detonation.

If/When Pakistan is overthrown, Iran develops nukes, and North Korea produces enough to pose a major threat is enough reasons wh yto build ABM.........and in the case of Pakistan, they very well could be under the control of what one would call a terrorists.....

And no, you are not going to intercept an ICBM with an aircraft.......

Between nations, MAD is the best defence. Against terrorists, intelligence and vigilance is best. Missile defence does not work (even technically) against either.

Nobody said or is saying that ABM is going to defend directly against terrorists............as for missile on missile, the Patriot (which is a 30+ year old design) had a perfect record against Iraqi missiles in the recent gulf war.

[Big Blue Machine]

Ronald Reagen didn't win the Cold War. He was out-spent the Russians, and the Russians went into bankcrupty and collasped. That's not winning.

[Stoker]

Ronald Reagen didn't win the Cold War. He was out-spent the Russians, and the Russians went into bankcrupty and collasped. That's not winning.

Why isn't it winning? Of the United States and USSR who won and who lost? And who was the leader of the nation that won and had spending policies that forced the loser to increase spending, spending in which they couldn't afford?

[Black Dog]

Who said ABM is taking money away from those?

Perhaps not directly. But budgets are finite, resources are limited.

If/When Pakistan is overthrown, Iran develops nukes, and North Korea produces enough to pose a major threat is enough reasons wh yto build ABM.........and in the case of Pakistan, they very well could be under the control of what one would call a terrorists.....

This assumes, of course, that "terrorists" (whoever they are); let's say "hostiles") are completely irrational and unconcerned with anything but the utter destruction of the U.S., even if that comes at the cost of total annihalation of themselves. Of course, such pronouncements are great for whipping up fear and hysteria, but seldom pan out in the real world. If the North Koreans, for instance, were so unconcerned for their own national survival, they would have levelled Seoul and swarmed over the border any time in the last 50 years.

Nobody said or is saying that ABM is going to defend directly against terrorists............as for missile on missile, the Patriot (which is a 30+ year old design) had a perfect record against Iraqi missiles in the recent gulf war.

I recall the Pats had a stunning success rate against British fighters and that Iraq (reportedly) lobbed 10 Silkworms into Kuwait, two of which were reportedly intercepted. So let's see some back up.

Ronald Reagen didn't win the Cold War. He was out-spent the Russians, and the Russians went into bankcrupty and collasped. That's not winning.

Ronalr Reagan didn't win the Cold War period. He prolonged it by pushing aggressive policies, which delayed reforms within the Soviet Union. See William Blum's book "Killing Hope".

[Stoker]

Perhaps not directly. But budgets are finite, resources are limited.

Perhaps then we could draw a comparision with Canada......money spent on Social programs, is taking resources away from the Envirmonet....plays both ways I guess.

This assumes, of course, that "terrorists" (whoever they are); let's say "hostiles") are completely irrational and unconcerned with anything but the utter destruction of the U.S., even if that comes at the cost of total annihalation of themselves.

Would suicide bombers count?

If the North Koreans, for instance, were so unconcerned for their own national survival, they would have levelled Seoul and swarmed over the border any time in the last 50 years.

I very much doubt the vast majority of North Korean do feel that way, but it doesn't really mater is a communist dictatorship now does it?

With that said, the North Koreans have never had the "means" to ensure that a move against the South wouldn't be met with a American nuclear responce.

I recall the Pats had a stunning success rate against British fighters and that Iraq (reportedly) lobbed 10 Silkworms into Kuwait, two of which were reportedly intercepted. So let's see some back up.

Patriot

The Patriot had 12 engagements in this war -- three of them with our own planes. Since then, U.S. military commanders have often claimed the Patriot hit "nine for nine" of the enemy missiles it targeted. But they still haven't produced a report explaining the incidents of friendly fire.

Nine for nine, thats 100% right? Even with the three cases of friendly fire added, thats still 100%.......

Ronalr Reagan didn't win the Cold War period. He prolonged it by pushing aggressive policies, which delayed reforms within the Soviet Union. See William Blum's book "Killing Hope".

What proof is there that if Carter had of been reelected the Cold war would have ended sooner?

The Soviets invaded Afghanistain during Carter's watch didn't they?

[Black Dog]

Perhaps then we could draw a comparision with Canada......money spent on Social programs, is taking resources away from the Envirmonet....plays both ways I guess.

Indeed: it plays that way all the time, when we hear of "wasteful" spending on social programs, spending that, presumably would be better directed to such con pet projects as the military or tax cuts, etc.

It's really a matter of priorities and, IMO, missile defense is pretty low on the list.

Would suicide bombers count?

No.

With that said, the North Koreans have never had the "means" to ensure that a move against the South wouldn't be met with a American nuclear responce.

Nor have they had the means to effectively deter a U.S. "preemptive" attack. based on the DPRK's behavior with respect to its nuclear program, it seems more likely that its using them as a bargaining chip for increased aid and a deterrent against U.S aggression. Both Iran and the DPRK learned a lesson from Iraq: if you're on the American hit list, the best thing to do is arm up. That does not necessarily lend itself to offensive posturing, as the fundamental raison d'etre of any regime, no matter how fanatical or irrational it may seem, is its own survival.

Nine for nine, thats 100% right? Even with the three cases of friendly fire added, thats still 100%.......

Interesting link: here's some other selections.

But the Patriot isn't like most weapons systems: it's almost completely automatic. Its radar tracks airborne objects. Its computer identifies those objects, and then displays them as symbols on a screen. And if the Patriot displays the symbol for an incoming ballistic missile, its operator has just seconds to decide whether to override the machine, or let it fire.

But Patriot computers were doing some strange things in this war, as reporter Robert Riggs from the Dallas station KTVT was surprised to learn when he was embedded with Patriot batteries.

“This was like a bad science fiction movie in which the computer starts creating false targets. And you have the operators of the system wondering is this a figment of a computer's imagination or is this real,” says Riggs.

“They were seeing what were called spurious targets that were identified as incoming tactical ballistic missiles. Sometimes, they didn't exist at all in time and space. Other times, they were identifying friendly U.S. aircraft as incoming TBMs.”

And it wasn't only Riggs' battery that had this problem. A U.S. Army report says "various Patriot locations throughout the theater" were identifying "spurious TBMs" -- tactical ballistic missiles that didn't exist.

Usually, the Patriot computers corrected these mistakes on their own. But sometimes they didn't.

“We were in one of the command posts. And I walked in and all the operators and officers are focused intently on their screens. And so you know something's going on here,” says Riggs. “And suddenly the door flies open, and a Raytheon tech representative runs in and says, ‘Don't shoot! Don't shoot!’ Well, that got our attention real quick.”

“A lot of money started flowing into the Patriot right after the Gulf War, because everybody thought it was a success,” says Cirincione.

But it turns out, that wasn’t true. Almost none of the Patriots had worked. Some of them had failed to hit the incoming Scuds. Some had shot at missiles that didn't even exist. But most of them still exploded in the sky, leading everyone to believe they'd scored a kill, when in fact they hadn’t.

“The best evidence that we found supports between two and four intercepts out of 44,” says Cirincione. “About a 10 percent success rate.”

And here's where we can take teh lessons of Patriot into ABM defence:

“There's a tendency in all our weapons systems to try to play up the good news and get it through its performance evaluations, and then try to fix the problems later on.”

“The Patriot is a multi-billion dollar system. There's a lotta money involved. There's a lotta careers involved,” says Cirincione, who says the Army continued to claim that the Patriot was a success after he presented them with his findings.

What proof is there that if Carter had of been reelected the Cold war would have ended sooner?

Ask a Ouija board. I prefer to deal in realities, like those expressed by former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan:

"The suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish. The general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Or former Gorbachev advisor Aleksandr Yakovlev, who, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

"It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."

[Reverend Blair]

......Or so they can launch a conventional invasion into the South without the threat of a South Korean Chemical attack or even a United States nuclear strike.......Bring in ABM, they can no longer threaten the South with impunity.

Yes they can. ABM does nothing to protect South Korea, Asia, or Eastern Europe. Any missile that can reach North merica can reach any of those places, as well.

Do you have proof that US spending on ABM is coming at the expense of any other Hom land defence program?

By the Bush government's own numbers it will cost between $53 billion and one trillion USD. Are your saying that money is going to come out of thin air?

I don't agree with it, but I understand why they are forced to use it........same with the NVA or Viet Cong using guerrilla warfare.

So then you agree that the installation of Star Wars is likely to promote, not negate, terrorist acts against the US.

Do you have any proof? How is it going to increase terrorism and/or start a new arms race?

If they didn't build the ABM defence, would that end terrorism and prevent an arms race with China?

Russia and China have already stated, openly, that Star Wars has forced them to develop new weapons technology. The new arms race began the day that Bush backed out of the 1972 treaty.

Not building ABM would not end terrorism, but it would make it less likely that the methods of terrorism would be used. China has said that they would not be developing new weapons or spending so much on getting into space if it wasn't for the threat of Star Wars.

Canada make a stand  Likie the old saying goes.....When in Rome, do as the Romans do

Last I checked the Roman Empire had fallen and those allied with it suffered some rather drastic consequences.

Yeah but everybody is trying to win in monopoly......competion being the key word.......only the ignorant think that there is not competion in the natural world.

Notice how I didn't say anything about competition. When you play Monopoly the losers go have a beer in front of the TV. When you play real life, the losers fly jet planes into tall buildings. We need to make a world of winners....I sometimes have to go into tall buildings.

The United States is the buyer of almost 25% of China's exports, the next biggest buyer is Japan and about 15%......The United States is still important.

So far and the outlook has been getting worse for a long while. You ignored the fact that the leaders of China might have a different rule book too.

In terms of GDP, is the United States growing or not? Now you answer my repeat question, then I'll answer yours......

Not when their debt is taken into account. If I was borrowing more than I made on a consistent basis, my banker would cut off the cash pretty quick. The US has been borrowing more than it makes for a very long time.

[Stoker]

QUOTE 

Would suicide bombers count?

No.

Why's that?

Nor have they had the means to effectively deter a U.S. "preemptive" attack. based on the DPRK's behavior with respect to its nuclear program, it seems more likely that its using them as a bargaining chip for increased aid and a deterrent against U.S aggression. Both Iran and the DPRK learned a lesson from Iraq: if you're on the American hit list, the best thing to do is arm up. That does not necessarily lend itself to offensive posturing, as the fundamental raison d'etre of any regime, no matter how fanatical or irrational it may seem, is its own survival.

Thats a load of BS.......Iran and North Korea have been "arming up" long before any "US preemptive attack" on Iraq........

WRT to the Patriot missile, the entire quote that you posted doesn't change the fact that it went 9 for 9 against missiles, and unfortunately 3 for 3 against friendly aircraft........But of the thousands of aircraft flying in the gulf during the war, well three friendly aircraft is three aircraft too much, it's not a disater.........

Regardless, the Patriot and the missile that will be used in the ABM defence plan are completly different.......apples and oranges.

Ask a Ouija board. I prefer to deal in realities, like those expressed by former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan:

QUOTE 

"The suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish. The general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Or former Gorbachev advisor Aleksandr Yakovlev, who, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

QUOTE 

"It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."

We can match retoric all day if you want:

Reagan Best Remembered for Winning the Cold War

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative Washington think thank, is a journalist who covered the late president for nearly 40 years. He says Mr. Reagan accomplished a great deal.

"He ended the Cold War without firing a shot, and he did that though an extraordinary buildup of the military, the U.S. military," said Mr. Edwards, "and sticking to such meaures as the Strategic Defense Initiative, which convinced the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev that they could not win an arms race."

Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington, says some people viewed Mr. Reagan's foreign policy as reckless and too heavy on defense, but that is how he accelerated the end of the Cold War. "He basically believed that the Russians couldn't compete with us and that they would only respect us if we had overwhelming strength," explained Mr. Wayne, "and he sought to produce a military with overwhelming strength, and in the end, the Soviets backed down."

Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer, says the main achievement of the Reagan presidency was the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

"Reagan's central premise was that if we negotiated with the Soviet Union from a position of strength, the Soviet Union wouldn't be able to do it, they'd have give up or roll back," said the journalist, "and he didn't know quite how it was going to end, because they didn't have the economic power to do it."

Your turn to serve........

Yes they can. ABM does nothing to protect South Korea, Asia, or Eastern Europe. Any missile that can reach North merica can reach any of those places, as well.

Japan is taking part in it.........is Japan still in Asia?

By the Bush government's own numbers it will cost between $53 billion and one trillion USD. Are your saying that money is going to come out of thin air?

I'm the only person not guessing were it will come from.........

So then you agree that the installation of Star Wars is likely to promote, not negate, terrorist acts against the US.

I doubt it will will have a positive or negative effect on terror.........since it's not designed to

The only possable effect ABM would/could have against terror, would be if a terror group was able to take control of a future Pakistani or Iranian ICBM........

Russia and China have already stated, openly, that Star Wars has forced them to develop new weapons technology. The new arms race began the day that Bush backed out of the 1972 treaty.

Not building ABM would not end terrorism, but it would make it less likely that the methods of terrorism would be used. China has said that they would not be developing new weapons or spending so much on getting into space if it wasn't for the threat of Star Wars

Russia can't afford an arms race, and China has been in an arms race with the United States long before Bush jr.....

Last I checked the Roman Empire had fallen and those allied with it suffered some rather drastic consequences.

I think the quote went over your head, I'm sorry.

Notice how I didn't say anything about competition. When you play Monopoly the losers go have a beer in front of the TV. When you play real life, the losers fly jet planes into tall buildings. We need to make a world of winners....I sometimes have to go into tall buildings.

It's hard to make a world full of "winners", when some are quite content with being losers......

So far and the outlook has been getting worse for a long while. You ignored the fact that the leaders of China might have a different rule book too.

Do they? Didn't they scrap Mao's "economic rule book" after he died?

Not when their debt is taken into account. If I was borrowing more than I made on a consistent basis, my banker would cut off the cash pretty quick. The US has been borrowing more than it makes for a very long time.

Well if thats what it takes to have the world's largest economy........and might I ask, is their economy growing again???

[Black Dog]

Why's that?

Apples and Oranges. As I said, most regimes' main concern is maintaining power, not self-destruction.

Thats a load of BS.......Iran and North Korea have been "arming up" long before any "US preemptive attack" on Iraq........

And look where it's got them:

U.S. to Offer North Korea Incentives in Nuclear Talks

We can match retoric all day if you want:

Reagan Best Remembered for Winning the Cold War

Sorry, but no. Right-wing think-tanks and idealogically impaired Reagan yes-men don't exactly counte rthe views of the people who actually served in the U.S. and Soviet governments. Fact is, the Soviet-style of government was inherently unsustainable and the Communists regime was tettering economically and socially long before Reagan set foot in the Oval Office.

Anyway, neither here nor there...

[Stoker]

Apples and Oranges. As I said, most regimes' main concern is maintaining power, not self-destruction.

and

And look where it's got them:

U.S. to Offer North Korea Incentives in Nuclear Talks

This is simple, as I've said above, once a nation gets nuclear weapons, the United States can no longer deal with them as easily. In the case of North Korea, they have nuclear weapons, and because of that, the United States needs to walk on egg shells, that is until they deploy ABM.

[Black Dog]

This is simple, as I've said above, once a nation gets nuclear weapons, the United States can no longer deal with them as easily. In the case of North Korea, they have nuclear weapons, and because of that, the United States needs to walk on egg shells, that is until they deploy ABM

I certauinly doubt the U.S. approach would be much fdiffernt if they had a viable missile defense.

Anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason to believe that the DPRK would ever deploy a nuke against the U.S.

So the missile sheild is a sheild against, at best, negligible threats. Might as well build ananti-UFO defense sheild. After all, we saw what them aliens might do in "Independence Day".

[Stoker]

I certauinly doubt the U.S. approach would be much fdiffernt if they had a viable missile defense.

Anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason to believe that the DPRK would ever deploy a nuke against the U.S.

Why did they build them? And who is the major obstacle in preventing them from making on Korea?

So the missile sheild is a sheild against, at best, negligible threats. Might as well build ananti-UFO defense sheild. After all, we saw what them aliens might do in "Independence Day".

Whats negligible about a nuclear weapon?

[Reverend Blair]

There is nothing negligible about a nuclear weapon and NOBODY here has said that there is. There a negligible threat of one being used against North America though...there was before Bush started a new arms race and there will be after he's done paying off his arms-building buddies.

The real nuclear threat is of a dirty bomb or even a black market nuke being set off in a harbour. Star Wars uses funding that could be better spent addressing that threat. Guys in coveralls scanning cargo containers isn't really glamorous, but it is needed. Those needs are being ignored for some high tech toys.

Why? Well go to the PNAC web-site, read what they have to say about the US maintaining military and economic dominance, then look at the list of PNAC members with major connections to Bush.

[Stoker]

The real nuclear threat is of a dirty bomb or even a black market nuke being set off in a harbour. Star Wars uses funding that could be better spent addressing that threat. Guys in coveralls scanning cargo containers isn't really glamorous, but it is needed. Those needs are being ignored for some high tech toys.

Has anybody proven yet that ABM defence will come at the cost of Homeland defence?

Why? Well go to the PNAC web-site, read what they have to say about the US maintaining military and economic dominance, then look at the list of PNAC members with major connections to Bush.

Have I denied that the United States wants to remain "Top Dog"? Hell, I support them being "Top Dog"...

So whats your point? ABM will help them remain Top Dog.........with that out in the open, can we now take our Tin-Foil hats off?

[Reverend Blair]

Sure, go for slurs. It ain't a tin-foil hat on my head though. The need to protect against an incredibly tiny threat that can be dealt with through negotiation puts that on your head, Stoker.

Have you been able to say where the money will come from? If it isn't coming out of other defense programs then where? Foreign aid, which does more to deter terrorism than any military program. Military aid, which fights threats, real and imagined, in somebody elses country. Domestic social programs, which keep them American people from rebelling.

Hmmm. Those space guns are looking more and more dangerous all the time.

[Stoker]

Sure, go for slurs. It ain't a tin-foil hat on my head though. The need to protect against an incredibly tiny threat that can be dealt with through negotiation puts that on your head, Stoker.

How well did Clintron's negotiations work out in the mid 90s?

Have you been able to say where the money will come from? If it isn't coming out of other defense programs then where? Foreign aid, which does more to deter terrorism than any military program. Military aid, which fights threats, real and imagined, in somebody elses country. Domestic social programs, which keep them American people from rebelling.

As I said above, I've no idea........it's you that is asumming that it will come from Homeland defence.....so prove it!

Hmmm. Those space guns are looking more and more dangerous all the time.

If thats how you feel, I suggest you place your hat back on your head........and remember, have the reflective side on the outside, so as to deflect the ray gun beams

[Reverend Blair]

How well did Clintron's negotiations work out in the mid 90s?

Fairly well, actually. North Korea was not as much of a threat as it is today.

As I said above, I've no idea........it's you that is asumming that it will come from Homeland defence.....so prove it!

No, I'm assuming that it will cost a lot of money. I listed a few areas where it could come from. I based that on the Bush administration's spending habits and the influence they try to buy with that spending. You cannot pull $57 billion out of an economy and not have it come from somewhere.

[Black Dog]

Why did they build them? And who is the major obstacle in preventing them from making on Korea?

Argh. Look up "deterrent" since you don't seem to understand what it means.

Whats negligible about a nuclear weapon?

Don't be fatuous. The threat posed by DPRK's nukes is negligible at best. There is teh distant possibility that the korean regime could sel their nukes off to parties unknown (such as terrorist orgs), but again, such a scenario would not be deterred by a missile sheild.

Has anybody proven yet that ABM defence will come at the cost of Homeland defence?

We already went over this. Government budgets are zero-sum. Money for the missile shield (which, I can't stress enough, doesn't even work) is money NOT going to homeland security, health care, education etc etc etc.

[Stoker]

Fairly well, actually. North Korea was not as much of a threat as it is today.

How's that? He gave them a nuclear reactor and Kim contiuned develping nukes.........what would you call badly?

Argh. Look up "deterrent" since you don't seem to understand what it means.

I know very much what the word deterrent means, and with ABM defence, they no longer have a deterrent.....

Don't be fatuous. The threat posed by DPRK's nukes is negligible at best. There is teh distant possibility that the korean regime could sel their nukes off to parties unknown (such as terrorist orgs), but again, such a scenario would not be deterred by a missile sheild.

........Or North Korea could contiune to sell off their missile technology (as they have been doing for decades), and add to the "menu" nuclear warheads........in which case, the ABM sheild will very much be useful.

We already went over this. Government budgets are zero-sum. Money for the missile shield (which, I can't stress enough, doesn't even work) is money NOT going to homeland security, health care, education etc etc etc.

So you don't know were the money will come from now?

[Black Dog]

I know very much what the word deterrent means, and with ABM defence, they no longer have a deterrent.....

*bangs head against desk* You asked (several times): "Why would North korea build nukes (the unspoken portion being"...if they don't intend to use them?")

The answer is: as a deterrent. ABM or nor ABM: its irrelevant to the question.

........Or North Korea could contiune to sell off their missile technology (as they have been doing for decades), and add to the "menu" nuclear warheads........in which case, the ABM sheild will very much be useful.

Which brings me back again to the idea that, just because North Korea (or anyone else) has nukes, that doesn't mean they'll use them. With nukes, the threat of them is usually sufficient.

But then yeah, maybe DPRK will sell of some ICBM's to Osama. I can see them being humped around the Pakistan mountains on the backs of mules right now...

[Edge]

I personally think we (Canada) shouldn't participate in Star Wars. For one, if the Americans can't even run the Patriot right i don't trust missles from space coming down at us (if they should miss like the Patriot)

There is no urgent threat of NK using nuclear weapons, i'd be more afraid of the States using one (they hold the record for using them on other countries for the purpose of death and destruction)

It would be used as an offensive weapon. Let's be honest, you always have a hidden agenda (Iraq and it's oil for instance) and I don't think it would be used for only denensive purposes.

Money waster. The cost of this program is very high, there's not even the correct technology yet. I'd rather spend money on health care and other social programs than a war weapon.

It would most certainly spark another Arms Race. First weapons in space would want other countires to try and get their own programs for weaponized space...which wouldn't be good because then they would be used for an offensive weapon.

Plus, anything Bush wants to go forward with can't be good for the rest of the world.

[KrustyKidd]

This must be the evil demented Black Dog that posted this. It makes sense.

*bangs head against desk* You asked (several times): "Why would North korea build nukes (the unspoken portion being"...if they don't intend to use them?")

The answer is: as a deterrent. ABM or nor ABM: its irrelevant to the question.

And to confirm that it cannot be, there is humor as well. I actually laughed.

But then yeah, maybe DPRK will sell of some ICBM's to Osama. I can see them being humped around the Pakistan mountains on the backs of mules right now...

Humor, sense? I could actually start to enjoy this guy.