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.

 

Poll Reveals 83 Percent Of Floridians Want Missile Defense Protection

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Um... the US missile defense plan does violate the 1972 ABM treaty.

MAD would work perfectly for NK and Iran just as it did the USSR.

www.clw.org...



no, that site is wrong, a limited system of 400 abm related sites are allowed in designated areas or in other countries, legally if we deem the situation to be a danger to our interests and state the reason we can back out of the abm treaty- the treaty states that.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that anti-missle systems were against some treaty. But when the US decided to build a defense system Russia relized we were violating something so they pulled out of SALT II. So I'm not so sure its illegal anymore. It was illiegal because this would neutralize MAD. But the problem is that a nuke launched by terrorists could come from any country. Plus many terrorists wouldn't mind giving their lives to launch a nuke at us. So MAD doesn't scare many of them.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I belive that the ABM treaty contained escape clauses that allowed either side to withdrawl from it. However, why is this an issue at this point?

1) The system while it is operational is really in testing
2) The number of interceptors at this point would not even put a dent in an all out Russian strike
3) As planned, even if you assume 100% accuracy, they will never have enough missiles to get everything Russia could throw at us.
4) A close in SLBM shot (depressed trajectory) would have little chance of being intercepted.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The treaty is just what critics are using to shoot down this idea though this doesn't even violate the treaty plus other counters tell us its bad to have a missile defense while they increase their stock pile
Its funny isn't it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
How about the missile defense fund comes from you guys who support it? You can donate the funding yourselves. It's not much, only like what, 100 billion? Go for it, make that legislature, and I'll support missile defense.

But as long as I'm paying for it, my say is:

MISSILE DEFENSE IS A CROCK OF CRAP IN A PORK BARREL.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
no, only 49 billion over 11 year span, what, is defense from an iranian or north korean missle(or being blackmailed by them) or say a scud launch off a barge by al queda, is not worth it? these are very real scenarios and deserve attention from a security standpoint, what would you say if one was launched either by accident or on purpose and killed thousands because we had no defense for it? do you give up so easily over everything because failures in the TESTING phase?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
no, only 49 billion over 11 year span, what, is defense from an iranian or north korean missle(or being blackmailed by them) or say a scud launch off a barge by al queda, is not worth it? these are very real scenarios and deserve attention from a security standpoint, what would you say if one was launched either by accident or on purpose and killed thousands because we had no defense for it? do you give up so easily over everything because failures in the TESTING phase?



A scud launch from an al-queda barge. Don't make me laugh.

Attack from North Korea or Iran, or blackmail attempt. I'm not scared.

It's still a waste of money.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Oh your not scared neither are we but instead of sitting there acting tough it better to be prepared captain America
Plus I wouldn't laugh if I were you before 911 if you had told norad or the pentagon al qada would hijack 4 planes with 20 people ad kill 3.000 Americans while using the planes as a missile they would have also laughed at you.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Scuds arent what this shield is designed for at least thats the impression i get. I was under the understanding that scuds are tactical weapons not strategic ones. I mean your standard unmodified scud doesnt really have that long a range. So if they were going to hide one in a barge they would basically just launch it off the coast of one our major cities. Not much a missile defense system in alaska or north dakota can do about that and I really doubt that we are going to install patriot missile batteries in manhattan on a permanent basis any time soon.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh your not scared neither are we but instead of sitting there acting tough it better to be prepared captain America
Plus I wouldn't laugh if I were you before 911 if you had told norad or the pentagon al qada would hijack 4 planes with 20 people ad kill 3.000 Americans while using the planes as a missile they would have also laughed at you.


I'm a lot more concerned about dying of cancer, a road accident, or murder than I am of terrorist action. 41,000 people died of auto accidents, 15,000 died of murder, and 553,768 people died of cancer in 2001. Basically that means your chances of dying of any of the above three combined is 200 times greater than dying of terrorism in 2001.

Basically 1,673 Americans die every day in 2001 die of these three preventable causes alone.

The chances of a foreign country starting a war with the United States by launching an interceptable ICBM is almost nil.

Stastistically, spending the money it's costing to develop missile defense on cancer treatment, law enforcement, and transportation improvements and safety is far sounder than spending it on a missile shield.

The DoD is the biggest waste of money this country has ever created. Hell it cost $40 billion just to develop the Bradley IFV. No, not production of the Bradley's we needed to field, no not even a single combat-ready vehicle, just the development. And what is it? A light diesel tank with a cannon, TOW missile, and firing ports. It didn't take revolutionary technology to develop an early-80s IFV, but somehow it took $40 billion.

And now we're drumming up the need for blowing money on a missile shield to protect us from the likes of North Korea and Iran? I think diplomacy and common sense along with MAD as a backup will protect us a lot more than a missile shield ever will.

However, in the age of scare tactics, I guess common sense goes out the window.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu


A scud launch from an al-queda barge. Don't make me laugh.

Attack from North Korea or Iran, or blackmail attempt. I'm not scared.

It's still a waste of money.

Right, you know those alarms they have in towns, the ones that go off in the event of a tornado or in the case of the cold war a missle alert. Yeah most towns around my area test them at 10 am every tuesday. Those things can be pretty scary when its not a test. Just think if one went off during a perfectly clear day while policemen are driving around with loudspeakers telling you its not a drill. Yeah impending doom can be quite scary can't it. Just something to think about before deciding not to protect your self.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:35 PM
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.



Hate to tell you this folks, but the system you claim will need to be put in place has existed since 1954. At that time it was called the DEW LINE for Defense Early Warning system. It is now a vastly upgraded system called the North Warning System (NWS). The premise is that any attack on the USA would have to come over the North Pole, the shortest route from the USSR, China, and other non-friendly nuke powers. I've spent quite a bit of time flying supplies into some of the sites for the last 20 years...

Read all about it at these sites.....

www.lswilson.ca...
www.lswilson.ca...



[edit on 30-7-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuuAttack from North Korea or Iran, or blackmail attempt. I'm not scared.



why not. they are only a year away from deploying ICBM's.... youre crazy to not take these threats seriously, im glad most in congress and the house of representatives understand the threat and are willing to waste money on protection from these threats.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by taibunsuuAttack from North Korea or Iran, or blackmail attempt. I'm not scared.



why not. they are only a year away from deploying ICBM's.... youre crazy to not take these threats seriously, im glad most in congress and the house of representatives understand the threat and are willing to waste money on protection from these threats.


US Dept. of the Interior already found an NK warhead in Alaska in March, 2003.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by taibunsuuAttack from North Korea or Iran, or blackmail attempt. I'm not scared.



why not. they are only a year away from deploying ICBM's.... youre crazy to not take these threats seriously, im glad most in congress and the house of representatives understand the threat and are willing to waste money on protection from these threats.


US Dept. of the Interior already found an NK warhead in Alaska in March, 2003.


really? can you cite a source for this? not trying to challenge you, i just want to know more about this.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Listen WestPoint23 what good is a missle defense going to do against a possible terrorist who sneaks a nuke or other device in and denotes a la Sum of All Fears or something (they used a soda machine in that movie). That's why I think a missle defense program like Star Wars (as proposed by Ronald Regan in the 80's) is stupid and would serve no real purpose since the threat has changed.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
US Dept. of the Interior already found an NK warhead in Alaska in March, 2003.


I too would like to see proff of this. Do you have a link to a news article or dept of Interior or Homeland security with details on this?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
times.hankooki.com...
www.americanfreepress.net...


Thanks, I will look them over... I glanced at them if true, that would
a) Bolster the case for missile defence
b) Reveal a serious breakdown in Radar Coverage. The COBRA DANE radar should have picked up on it.
c) Explains why Bush has taken a diplomatic approch with Kim Jong (I be Illing) Ill



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
It sounds like its true the story about the N. Korean missiles but this only supports why we should have a missile defense shield. One part I was rather surprised to read it was the art of a US commander saying we will be forced to bomb north Korean nuclear facilities if they try to export nuclear material



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join