Ballistic Missle Defence

[Crusader_4]

Tell me your thoughts on this contreversial topic (i have more sisnister reasons of why i am posting it) hahahhahaha lol (crusader1234 knows) but lets here what you think?

I dunno personally i am scared of by creating it there will be an increase in nuclear armanents.

[argent_paladin]

There is no intrinsic moral reason not to have a missle defense system. But then it comes down to prudence. Would it destablize the world? I think now would be the best time because we have no enemies who have sufficient nuclear capability to fire nukes at us. That might not be the case in twenty years but if we start then it might be too late, because it takes years to implement.
But, finally, there is the question of fiscal priorities. Is it worth billions and billions of dollars to implement this program? I say we continue doing research and perfecting the technology but hold off on installing a system (although it might be a good idea to put one up around Washington DC as soon as possible). I think terrorism is a greater threat to our security and they won't be firing ICBMs at us.

[God Conquers]

I'm not sure I'm too keen on the weaponization of space. (If in fact this ABM system is ground or water based I'm much more partial)

I agree with a_p in that prudence is the best marker right now. Why spend money on defending against (nonexistent) ballistic missile threats when port and train security is disastrous?

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 2 2005, 03:26 AM'] they won't be firing ICBMs at us. [/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but the most commonly available nuclear weapon in the world right now are ICBMs. Before 9/11, I wouldn't have figured that terrorists flying airplanes into building would be a very likely method of them attacking us. I definitely wouldn't have said they wouldn't do it, but there are many plausible things that terrorists can do and firing nuclear missiles at us is surprisingly likely. North Korea has nuclear missiles and they may be intercontinental in a few years. To say that the usual deterents of firing nuclear weapons at us will stop the terrorists is overlooking the fact that terrorists are very illogical.

Yeah, there are also security needs for our ports and I think money should go into that too. Smuggling in a nuclear weapon and getting it to its destination is a whole lot harder than sitting halfway around the globe firing a rocket that will hit the US in a matter of an hour or so.

[bolts53]

God is good

[Crusader_4]

What about the argument that it makes the world more unstable and thus someppl would claim (not myself personally) that the US could attack other countries without fear of a nuclear attaack?

[drewmeister2]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 2 2005, 03:26 AM'] There is no intrinsic moral reason not to have a missle defense system. But then it comes down to prudence. Would it destablize the world? I think now would be the best time because we have no enemies who have sufficient nuclear capability to fire nukes at us. That might not be the case in twenty years but if we start then it might be too late, because it takes years to implement.
But, finally, there is the question of fiscal priorities. Is it worth billions and billions of dollars to implement this program? I say we continue doing research and perfecting the technology but hold off on installing a system (although it might be a good idea to put one up around Washington DC as soon as possible). I think terrorism is a greater threat to our security and they won't be firing ICBMs at us. [/quote]
Well, actually, there is a moral reason not to build weapons like many countries do today. The reason is that countries spend billions and billions of dollars on making weapons, that, more likely than not, will never be used, and are just "in case", or to show the might of one country over the other. The problem with this is that this takes away much money from the poor, needy, sick, etc. who could be using the money to get out of poverty, to be able to feed themselves and their family. I do feel that we need to maintain weapons, in case of an attack. But the way it is right now, I think, is overboard, and the money should be spent on the poor and sick. Just some thoughts. God bless!

[argent_paladin]

Drewmeister2:

First, it is not an offensive weapon. Second, I specifically addressed the trade-off between spending on defense and spending on other things.
"But, finally, there is the question of fiscal priorities. Is it worth billions and billions of dollars to implement this program?"

The military employs hundreds of thousands, plus thousands for research and development and thousands more for contracts. What good does it do to help the sick and the poor if we are attacked? Plus, without a strong military, we would not have been able to help the people of Afghanistan, Iraq or even the tsunami victims.

Finally, it is not the job of the society to pay for social programs like welfare and medicare. It is the job of every society to ensure the safety of its citizens.

In response to 1337, the vast majority of ICBMs are in Russia and the US. They are under high security. It may be possible to acquire nuclear material, but virtually impossible to target and launch an ICBM at a US population center. Korea is definitely a potential problem. I said that the terrorists won't be firing ICBMs. Korea might. But it is much more likely that they will collapse under their own contradictions in the next two years.