BF2S Forums Reagans Star Wars program

K8Kommunist wrote:

Havazn: To expect a nation to retard it's military development in the name of the security of other nations is about as flawed a theory as I've ever seen.

I don't expect a country to do anything of the kind simply because no one will. But you have to understand my position that keeping a level playing field is the only way to keep a country in check. If only ONE country had nukes, whats to stop them from using them anywhere they want?

In this case, its complete protection from the retaliation end of MAD. The US can use its nukes on anyone it wants without having to worry about them getting nuked back. So where is the check? This will just create an escalation or arms race like during Reagan's presidency.

Prepare in times of peace what you need for war-Roman proverb

if we wait for ICBM's to become a threat, or I guess maybe a huge threat, as they already are a threat, then it might be too late, and if you don't start researching the technology then it will never become feasible, (and since when has the price of ANYTHING ever gone down?) as the only tech we are lacking is munitons/ordinance, maybe tracking but we pretty much already have that down, everything else (launch, orbit pathing)  we already know how to do

second that comment to Havazn, that basically boils down to "it's not fair!!", but don't worry havazn, it would cover Canada and Mexico as well

K8Kommunist wrote:

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous, we should not spend hundreds of millions if not billions on a threat which may or may not emerge in a few decades.
While we are at it, let's spend a few billion on anti-UFO air to air missiles for fighters.

Ok so your saying the space program is a waste of money too?

Lots of idea genereated by science and technology have been applied to war first then refined into peact time applications.  Two of the biggest, Rockets to the Moon and Nuclear Power.

Low Powered Lasers are used in everyday applications now.  CD ROM Drives, DVD Drives, Eye Surgery, etc.
Developing High Powered Lasers for military applications should be done for ensuring the safety of our country and those of are allies.

I remember when the Anti Theater Ballisitc Missle capability was added to the Patriot Missles.  It was not perfect then, it is not perfect now.  Additional ways and means of defending ourselves from Ballistic Missles of anytype should be developed.

You never know what new field of science or what new discoveries will be possible if you don't try.

kr@cker wrote:

alright, you wait til someone's shooting at you to go to the store to buy a kev vest


the patriots actually had a hard time hitting the scuds because they (the scuds) were so poorly built they couldn't stay on a proper flight path

No, you wait until there's a possibility someone can shoot you before buying the vest.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Havazn wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Patriots wont hit suicide bombers either, the key to orbiting anti-missile platforms is that they can swat missiles that are still on their ascent path, the reason this is important is that after an ICBM reaches the zenith of it's flight path is that it launches multiple warheads, which are then armed (they are not armed on the ascent so you don't nuke yourself when one fails like it did last week). If anything, the de-stabilization of the Soviet Union, has increased the likelihood of an ICBM sent our way. If we don't develop a program like this, we have to rely on mutuallly assured destruction, which would destroy the entire planet, is that really what you want? If it's not such a big threat then why have Lil Kim's missiles been aimed at japan and the US?

The problem there, is that you will have America with nuclear ICBMs and a missle defense shield that is impenetrable. This equals the ability to destroy any country without the possibility for retaliation. And the only thing preventing this from happening, is a 'promise' not to do it. Mutually assured destruction is the only way to keep that 'promise' really just a promise.

Maybe " somehow " you were not aware of the fact that the USA was only country in possession of atomic weapons and the means to deliver them from 1945 to 1949.
So I guess promises really do mean something if it comes from the right people.

Therein lies the answer.  Who can guarantee the people with the most sense will be in power.  Look where we are today..

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Thanks!
Star wars will be Reagans legacy.
It was genius.

You are aware that Reagan was making an off the cuff remark when he thought of the Star Wars missile defense?  It was never an actual military defense idea, it was more of a, "Well, what if we built a laser shield for the U.S." kind of thing.  That being said...

There are a few valid arguments against an SDI ICBM missile defense system. 

First of all, it gives a false sense of security against nuclear bombs.  It may be able to protect us if we correctly identify the threat, and only if the country attacking us has the ability to send missiles capable of hitting the U.S. (of which there may be a few countries.  What if the attacking country just uses a dirty bomb, filled with radioactive or chemical/biological material?

What if a country develops  technology that can bypass the missile defense system.  Not only will we have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on something that is obsolete, but we will have to waste more $$ building a new one.  This is the same argument that is used against bunker-busters.  Currently, those bombs can penetrate something like 300 feet of rock.  What is stopping unsavories from building bunkers 400 feet down?  Now we need a bunker-buster capable of penetrating 400 feet.  And the cycle continues. (Note: I am not quite sure on the exact depth bunker-busters can penetrate, so I used these values as examples)

I think the most valid argument against a defense shield is that it virtually condones building ICBMs.  Instead of leaning toward an era of less to no nuclear warheads, we are ushering in an era of increased weapons manufacturing.  I think the argument that people who want to will find a way around it is valid, even with Kr@ckers comparison.  Kevlar is relatively cheap, whereas a weapons' defense system is not.  I do not support dumping billions of dollars into an initiative that most likely will be obsolete by the time it is finished.

Not to mention the pressure our economic, political, and military allies will put on the U.S. if a shield like the one we are debating about ever gets built.  That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree and discuss.

STAR WARS FOR $100 billion Alex!

puckmercury wrote:

what if we build a system that catches the missles that were built to avoid the original system?  What if what if what if.  There will always be a game of one-upsmanship.  For every weapon, there will be a defense mechanism to defeat it, and for every defense mechanism there will be a weapon to overcome it.

When radar detectors came out, I noticed that police had radar detector detectors.  I jokingly made a comment way back when that, "Wouldn't it be funny if they had radar detector detector detectors?"  Yeah, they have those now.  Rather common place actually.

Just because something will be overcome at some point in the future doesn't mean it should be discarded as a valid defense/countermeasure for known dangers.

So you have no arguments for the other points?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

puckmercury wrote:

what if we build a system that catches the missles that were built to avoid the original system?  What if what if what if.  There will always be a game of one-upsmanship.  For every weapon, there will be a defense mechanism to defeat it, and for every defense mechanism there will be a weapon to overcome it.

When radar detectors came out, I noticed that police had radar detector detectors.  I jokingly made a comment way back when that, "Wouldn't it be funny if they had radar detector detector detectors?"  Yeah, they have those now.  Rather common place actually.

Just because something will be overcome at some point in the future doesn't mean it should be discarded as a valid defense/countermeasure for known dangers.

So you have no arguments for the other points?

no, I have pleanty, but felt that was the one I most wanted to address and the others have ben addressed previously.

First of all: Well, this falls under the arguement I already made.  It is better to have a system which might protect you than no system which absolutely will not protect you.

What if: This was the main stab of my previous arguement

I think the most: This is just silly in my opinion.  That's like saying that building prisons condones breaking the law.  It is simply preparing for a likely scenerio as part of a total readiness plan.  It being obsolete by the time it is finished is purely a function of design and forward thinking.  Sure, you could easily spend billions on a system which will be outdated tomorrow, but that is hardly what I (nor I imagine anyone else) is advocating.

Not to mention: On the contrary, I think this would give us a powerful tool and bargaining chip.  "Be our ally, and you too are under the umbrella."  Seems simple enough for me.  I don't support policing the world, so if two non affiliated nations want to bomb the hell out of themselves - keep our missle defense system out of it.  On the other hand, if an ally is attacked, blast that nuke


Alright, I think I addressed them all that time.  Miss any?  Rebuke?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Thanks!
Star wars will be Reagans legacy.
It was genius.

You are aware that Reagan was making an off the cuff remark when he thought of the Star Wars missile defense?  It was never an actual military defense idea, it was more of a, "Well, what if we built a laser shield for the U.S." kind of thing.  That being said...

He gave entire speeches addressing this "off the cuff remark", and where the hell do you think that most of the world's innovations come from?

again read my post concerning the kevlar

Hey guys, guess what, Star Wars worked!!! The article!

Who would have ever thought!

FOX News just ran a news item on how North Korea, with the help of Iran, are building a giant Death Star orbiting the moon. Apparently it will be able to fire a giant laser beam at unfriendly nations, annihilating them in less than a minute. USA seriously needs to invest in X-wing fighters.

SDI is dead. Scraped because it was a rubbish idea, badly implemented.

BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) is the new version, it even sort of works a bit. 6 out of 11 tests have been successful.

But then it's one thing shooting down a missile when you know what sort of missile it is, where it's coming from and when it's coming and having been preparing for it - it's quite another to intercept a sudden missile strike.

Don't worry though. It's not stupidly expensive and it can (probably, sometimes) shoot down simple missiles - not clever MIRV ones though. It's only cost $100 billion so far.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-04 07:16:33)