Poll Reveals 83 Percent Of Floridians Want Missile Defense Protection

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Looks like president bush is on the right rack about the missile defense program 83% of voters in Florida agree with him and this is said to be the view across the nation looks like people don't care about how much it cost they just want to be safe and i give bush major points for trying to build "the shield".


In a new statewide poll sponsored by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA), a national non- profit, non-partisan organization, 83 percent of likely Florida voters said that the nation should have a missile defense system with the ability to protect the United States, its cities and its population from an attack by missiles containing weapons of mass destruction.

The poll conducted during the period (July 15-19) by Public Strategies, Inc. an independent polling firm presented remarkable numbers showing that 600 registered Florida voters overwhelmingly want early deployment of a missile defense system.



+ 83% should have missile defense (82% female)
+ 66% a missile defense system should be deployed now
+ 74% believe the cost of missile defense is money well spent
+ 66% would be more likely to vote for a candidate who strongly supports missile defense


Bush has the peoples support for "The Shield"




posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I wouldn't trust a poll from Florida. We've earned the name Floridiots and about 80% of the people are exactly the intellectual type here.

A missle defense for the entire country would bring a huge price tag and I really hope we are beyond the days of fearing an attack that a missle system could fend off. Havent high power lasers proven effective also, why not those everywhere?



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:51 AM
link   
What I never understood was the sense of this missile shield. Yea, of course to destroy missiles being targeted at the USA but what specific scenarios do they think of?

Honest question.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
The Shield will never happen and heres why:

In order for there to be a detection of an incoming missile, there has to be a receiving station. Now these things are going a couple times faster than the speed of sound so these tracking stations need to be in Europe and for the west coast, on Pacific islands.

Europe will never agree to this because it will make them prime targets in a nuclear war and because the shield will not protect them. Also, it is in violation of the nuclear non profilition (sp?) treaty limiting development of arms. If the U.S. violates this, then they will have no right to stop Japan from developing WMDs, or to stop from Germany ignore their WW2 sanctions and start rearming.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
We would be happy to have some spare money to spend on weapons. Though, we would still miss somebody to attack


I think the USA can do quite everything they want on their military bases here in Germany. It's more like a bit USA in Germany and not just rented land. They even have parts of their Echelon program in Bavaria and the internet echelon in Frankfurt Airbase.
So at least Germany wouldn't nag around about this one, hehe.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Also, it is in violation of the nuclear non profilition (sp?) treaty limiting development of arms. If the U.S. violates


No its not a violation nuclear non proliferation because it is a defensive and not offensive weapon system. and maybe im wrong but didn't the US pull out of that treaty?


Europe will never agree to this because it will make them prime targets in a nuclear war and because the shield will not protect them.


Really is that why we have long range radars in Australia and England and Canada Hawaii and Even Alaska and many other places.


Havent high power lasers proven effective also, why not those everywhere?


Well a missile defense means all types of things MHTEL lasers is one example of a system that will be used for defense and other systems include various hit to kill missiles such as the PAC-3 and coming in the future lasers from space so it is a wide variety of weapon systems.





And this is what happens to incoming missiles hit by this PAC-3 system.







Also in the not so distant future this is what's coming.





Here is a good site if you want to know about the Missile defense it shows tings from tracking and targeting to different missiles.

www.northropgrumman.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Is there any information about how capable the system will be?



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
westpoint23 wrote


No its not a violation nuclear non proliferation because it is a defensive and not offensive weapon system. and maybe im wrong but didn't the US pull out of that treaty?


It can be considered an offensive system as it nullifies Mutual Assured Destruction. Owning an anti-missile system means you could pre emptively attack a country secure in the knowledge they can't respond with a missile attack on you. That makes your missile shield part of an offensive capability.

And if you pull out of treaties when you feel like it, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, that makes you a country that can't be trusted. It also sends the message to dictators around the world that the US isn't serious about anti proliferation treaties.

The US could end up shooting itself in the foot with this system. It offers no protection against a 9/11 style attack, or from a large scale CBRN attack.


zero lift



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Not really it is only considered a violation of the treaty if it is an offensive weapon and its not now lets not go into imaginary theorized here about how it would be considered and blah blah blah the US has no intentions of stooping this program so what can I say plus I think for 9/11 attacks we should put that MTHEL laser on top of tall building rooftops to shoot don incoming aircraft that are on a course with the tower.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well who woundn't want a missle defense system, sure I don't trust votes from flordia when it comes to Bush but I still think we need this system. But the military has been working on this since the Clinton Administration, so no points for Bush. But about not needing it well you can never be to careful. Its not exactly that hard to build a nuclear bomb and SCUDs aren't that hard to find these days. Anybody coud get a hold of ballistic missles, and a lot of people hate the US. Oh Westpoint I like your idea of putting lasers on tall buildings except most planes tend to hit around the middle of the building so the laser has no line of sight on the plane if it approaches from the proper altitude. And considering terrorists seem to like the really tall buildings theres not really anything in the way of the plane. So my recommendation would be placing lasers on shorter buildings around the tall buildings.

[edit on 7/27/2004 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
Is there any information about how capable the system will be?


I don't know if this topic applys, but if Boost phase technology is one of the prospects this thread talks about, this link has info on the possible failure in this venture.

SCI/TECH: Severe Limits on Boost-Phase Missile Defense

I know there are views on both sides of this prospective system, this side represents the limits of using this technology. You read and you decide....



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
westpoint23 wrote


Not really it is only considered a violation of the treaty if it is an offensive weapon and its not now lets not go into imaginary theorized here about how it would be considered and blah blah blah


For your information "Son of Star Wars", the US proposed missile shield is a violation of the Anti Missile treaty. Stamping your foot and saying blah..blah..blah doesn't change that fact.

But carry on .....don't let a little thing like the US ignoring treaties stop you.

zero lift



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   

For your information "Son of Star Wars", the US proposed missile shield is a violation of the Anti Missile treaty. Stamping your foot and saying blah..blah..blah doesn't change that fact.

But carry on .....don't let a little thing like the US ignoring treaties stop you.

zero lift



Well what are you going to do sue us


Plus CD yeah I guess if a plane comes down at a really low altitude it can evade the lasers but like you said putting it on shorter buildings around it but in washington Dc they are putting up anti aircraft SAM's near the whit house.


[edit on 28-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Here is a tidbit about Florida's politics. We once had a govenor that wanted to build a big wall on the north border of the state to keep the cold weather out in the winter, he also wanted to install giant fans along the coast to blow the hurricanes away. Again a poll conducted in Florida is going to have a lot od idiotic responces.

A missle defense shield is not practical, for one what in the hell would it protect against? How much would it cost to set up and maintain? And given that Floridiots are maintaining and monitor the system I can promise they will make a mistake and accidentally shoot down the space shuttle or unidenified commercial air line.

WE DON'T NEED A MISSLE DEFENSE PROGRAM! the exception being secure areas and i pretty sure they are already there.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero liftBut carry on .....don't let a little thing like the US ignoring treaties stop you.


the way its worded if we declare the system to be used for purposes to defend against china, north korea or anyone except russia or if we deem that the current situation related to the subject matter of the Treaty has jeopardized our interests we can withdrawl from the abm treaty and anyways our missle defence system is within the limits of the treaty as it is a limited system, the treaty doesnt prohibit abm systems totally- we arent violating the treaty at all.

[edit on 27-7-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   

A missle defense shield is not practical, for one what in the hell would it protect against? How much would it cost to set up and maintain? And given that Floridiots are maintaining and monitor the system I can promise they will make a mistake and accidentally shoot down the space shuttle or unidenified commercial air line.


Uhh..it would protect against rouge nations firing an ICBM at the Us. N.Korea or maybe Iran plus it will defend to a certain degree an attack form any nation upon the United States. Really? since when are you concerned about the cost if its being set up to protect you life? No this system would be nation wide not just in Florida, partially every state might have a system. Also there are ways to prevent this system form shooting down regular airplanes read some of the links i provided. Have nuclear missiles been launched accidentally by the US no the same type of systems will be made to prevent this from happening with the ABM lasers and missiles.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humpy
Europe will never agree to this because it will make them prime targets in a nuclear war and because the shield will not protect them. Also, it is in violation of the nuclear non profilition (sp?) treaty limiting development of arms. If the U.S. violates this, then they will have no right to stop Japan from developing WMDs, or to stop from Germany ignore their WW2 sanctions and start rearming.


As westpoint posted, the X-Band radar station is already being built in Englan. The US is also in negotiations with the Polish government to station some of the interceptors there. Also, the missile defence system is part of the ABM treaty, not the Non proliferation Pact.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
Is there any information about how capable the system will be?


the GAO has a good report on the status of the system, which indicates it's capabilities. it can be found at www.gao.gov in their archive. it's GAO-03-600, called:


MISSILE DEFENSE
Additional Knowledge Needed
Developing System for
Long-Range Missiles

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humpy
The Shield will never happen and heres why:

In order for there to be a detection of an incoming missile, there has to be a receiving station. Now these things are going a couple times faster than the speed of sound so these tracking stations need to be in Europe and for the west coast, on Pacific islands.

Europe will never agree to this because it will make them prime targets in a nuclear war and because the shield will not protect them. Also, it is in violation of the nuclear non profilition (sp?) treaty limiting development of arms. If the U.S. violates this, then they will have no right to stop Japan from developing WMDs, or to stop from Germany ignore their WW2 sanctions and start rearming.



It's allready happening. they have allready set up an alaska radar, which is HUGE and by itself costs around 740 million dollars! At the end of september we will have in place the portion of the system to stop any missiles launched from the North Korea area. I for one am for it, after all its better then nothing.

Do I think it will get any use? No of course not, but thats not really the point of it, the point is: That we have nuclear weapons which makes the enemy not fire theres at us because they know that they will be destroyed as well. So now if we have something that if they do shoot there missiles at us we will shoot them out of the sky. Plus we will know who shot them and retaliat.

Think of it this way: In the old west nobody has a gun except for these 2 guys, so they turn and take 10 paces and turn around and shoot the other guy they both get hit except for one guy had on a bulletproof vest and it saved him while the other guy got hit in the heart and died.
So this is basically a giant United States Bulletproof vest.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   
G. Gordon Liddy was talking about this a few years ago and how great it was. I called him up and thrashed him in a quick debate so he just said 'You're wrong,' and hung up on me.

Anyway, that was my 15 minutes of fame.

Missile Defense = Pork, plain and simple.

MAD has worked to balance all ICBM issues and should still be used. The only problem is, it's not pulling in any money anymore since MAD relied on having an arsenal equal to that of your opponent's.

If you have an arsenal greater than your opponent's, you are all set.

No one in their right mind would nuke the US with an ICBM.

The real nuke / WMD threat is either homegrown threats or imported nukes.

Missile defense will go unused in a strategic sense. It's real benefit is in tactical situations. Since strategic always brings in billions more than tactical, that's what they're developing.

As far as 80% of Floridians saying missile defense is good, well, do those people know the specifics of the project? I doubt it. Probably 20% do. 80% of the people will tell you anything the government's doing to protect citizens is good, whether they know the specifics or not. So let's not use useless stats to debate things here.






 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join