It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?
Originally posted by Murcielago
Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?
- Where did you get those numbers?
A single interceptor has yet to be tested...so I wouldn't judge its accuracy just yet.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I personally would rather have a missile defense with a 10% success rate then none at all. Though I would like one with a much higher rate. Say just for example Kim Jong-il goes alittle crazy with age and decides enough is enough and launches a single nuclear missile at the West Coast of the US. Without a MD we have a 0% percent chance of stopping it. Im no mathematician but I think 10% percent is better then 0%
Originally posted by Simon666
When nukes are launched, usually all or a very great number are launched as the retalliation might destroy remaining warheads in their silos.
Originally posted by Simon666
North Korea's leader is not stupid at all to risk his cosy dictator life and won't launch,
Originally posted by Simon666
while the retard president of the US thinks - due to bad advisors and/or taking his desires for reality, as with Iraq - that BMD will protect the US, attack North Korea and end up having the US nuked. Which is a scenario in which BMD actually INCREASES the chances of the Us getting nuked.
Originally posted by NWguy83
Originally posted by Murcielago
Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?
- Where did you get those numbers?
A single interceptor has yet to be tested...so I wouldn't judge its accuracy just yet.
Actually it's a little less.
They've done 8 shoot down tests, 5 were successful. I think I got that from either BBC or CBC.
Originally posted by Murcielago
I believe those are the ship tests...which is one of the layers of the shield...but i'm refering to the very high price tagged land based interceptors...which so far have undergone 2 tests, both had computer problems...which are failures in my book...but I wont really judge it until one actually gets off the ground and hits or misses its target.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A MD increasing the chance of the US getting nuked is a pretty lame theory. What do you think a country is more likely to use a nuke if the person they are shooting at has a MD With or without a MD the US response to a WMD attack is the same. They are not going to hold off and wait to see if the MD works before launching their own nukes. Assured destruction is still the response for any country that uses a WMD agianst America MD or not. But that threat wont stop someone that is insane, and the world has alot of insane people.