It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: J1mmyNeutron
Questions worth asking..
I'd also ask you to consider the point of all these systems you refer to that nations wouldn't want to jeopardize. Whats the point of these systems? Other than alerting of an attack or building information on enemy position/armament, they're completely useless systems in the military sense.
So at that point, what would they care if they were damaged or not? That's like saying "A criminal won't shoot me, because we both have body armor on". You're gonna take a bullet the same way they will. Mutually assured destruction. Point is to be the dog with the bigger stick willing to use it. Which ultimately brings us to the point that wars are started when 1 guy with big balls says "fu" to another guy with big balls.
originally posted by: Shaiker
It will always be a risk. When one man could potentially do the unthinkable whether it be Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran then it will always be a real risk. Although, I think our greater risk is germ warfare. Why destroy all the infrastructure when you can just kill the humans that occupy it.