Will Democrats support Bush's Missile Defense Technology?

2006-11-12 13:07:59

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

I'm wondering if the Democrats will support Bush's Missile Defense Technology? I mean if you have a missile defense shield then would we really need to worry about countries like North Korea getting nukes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Putin get pissed off at Bush because he said that we were no longer beholden to the SALT ABM treaty since the U.S.S.R. doesn't exist anymore?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep01/ … le,00.html

I mean, if we had a working missile defense system, then we wouldn't have to go and fight wars like Iraq or Iran?

For those who want more information on a Missile Defense Shield:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/NationalGuardMissileDefenseLogo.PNG

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Shield

Last edited by Harmor (2006-11-12 13:09:43)

2006-11-12 13:08:45

#2

d4rkst4r: biggie smalls; +72|6727|Ontario, Canada

its coming from fox news, what do you think?

"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"

2006-11-12 13:09:53

#3

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6829

Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????

2006-11-12 13:12:02

#4

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

d4rkst4r wrote:
its coming from fox news, what do you think?

You have already discounted the article. The article has nothing to do with whether Democrats support the technology, all it is is an article about how pissed the North Koreans are at the United States doing Missle Defense tests.

Funny how you immediately discount my source without even reading it and providing alternative sources discounting it. If you did that then I may actually agree with you.

2006-11-12 13:13:53

#5

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????

That's what I thought, but the Democrats have not supported similar techonlogy in the past because they said it would 'antagonize' our enemies. In addition to being a huge money sink to the military.

2006-11-12 13:20:20

#6

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????

Also, the money was earmarked in the Republican congress during Bush's first term. I wonder if they will cut or defund the program under the guise of balancing the budget?

If you know you history, Democrats usually reduce military spending when in power.

2006-11-12 13:59:54

#7

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

Harmor wrote:
I mean if you have a missile defense shield then would we really need to worry about countries like North Korea getting nukes?

The better question is, "Why are you worried in the first place." Who cares if North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is not like Kim can actually use them.

Last edited by Elamdri (2006-11-12 14:00:45)

2006-11-12 14:03:27

#8

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6823|Southeastern USA

CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????

they've been the main opponents to it since it's conception, their argument usually something along the lines of "if you make a missile shield they'll invent a missile that can foil it". kinda like telling your swat team not to wear kevlar so the druglords don't use teflon coated rounds.

2006-11-12 14:05:31

#9

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

kr@cker wrote:
their argument usually something along the lines of "if you make a missile shield they'll invent a missile that can foil it".

Um, there already is a system that can foil it. It's called a MIRV.

Last edited by Elamdri (2006-11-12 14:08:01)

2006-11-12 14:08:55

#10

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6823|Southeastern USA

which is why they're developing tech to target the individual warheads and decreasing response time to plug the missiles before they arm and are still one piece

2006-11-12 14:16:58

#11

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

Thats wonderful, but the problem is that while ABMs are wonderful in theory, all it takes is a faster missile or more warheads per MIRV, and all that money is wasted.

Not that I believe its really necessary. To take into consideration that any state that has nuclear missiles would never be stupid enough to use them, and any group that was stupid enough to use them wouldn't have ICBMs/SLBMs available to them.

In reality, the problem with ABMs isn't really the cost though, it is the destabilizing effect that it has on the international system. If you build ABMs, then China, Russia, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and all the other nuclear equipped countries suddenly have to come to terms with the fact that the US has the ability to nuke them, without fear of retaliation.

This is why counterforce weaponry is inherently destablizing and why countervalue weaponry is inherently stablizing.

2006-11-12 15:18:36

#12

herrr_smity: Member; +156|6902|space command ur anus

the missile shield will lead to an new arms race

2006-11-12 18:11:14

#13

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

Elamdri wrote:
This is why counterforce weaponry is inherently destablizing and why countervalue weaponry is inherently stablizing.

it just occured to me, but I never clarified,

Counterforce weapons are weapons designed to destroy enemy weapons and governing bodies, such as bunkerbusters, first-strike nukes, ABM's, stuff like that. Basically weaponry that destroys your enemy's weapons and the ability to retaliate.

Countervalue weapons are weapons designed to kill your enemy's population and destroy it's industry, like strategic nuclear weapons.

2006-11-12 19:21:08

#14

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6823|Southeastern USA

herrr_smity wrote:
the missile shield will lead to an new arms race

you think missile tech will stop? this is a worthless argument "just sit there and get hit by the missiles because if you try to defend yourself they'll make a new one"

2006-11-12 19:26:15

#15

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6811|Long Island, New York

This is like saying "Do you think the dems would support england if they were nuked?".

2006-11-12 20:01:03

#16

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

Yeah, Democrats will likely support a missile defense system, but there are some concerns in its development.

Right now, the cost of development and the unsuccessful tests that have been run suggest that a lot of progress is yet to be made. This is going to be one very expensive project.

The only way that the Democrats and Bush can work together to budget this item is to make serious cuts in other areas. We are currently running way too far in debt.

2006-11-12 20:03:07

#17

Phantom2828: Member; +51|6802|Land of the free

Of course they won't.
They prefer diplomatic means lol

2006-11-12 20:11:30

#18

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6737|meh-land

Phantom2828 wrote:
Of course they won't.
They prefer diplomatic means lol

Bush brought it up, bush is republican, so they obviously won't support it for several reasons:
1)Bush is a republican
2) The democats got power back, they want to flex their muscles
3) the quoted post states the third reason
4) they're stupid and will come up with another reason to go against it

2006-11-12 20:16:50

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

Blehm98 wrote:
Phantom2828 wrote:
Of course they won't.
They prefer diplomatic means lol
Bush brought it up, bush is republican, so they obviously won't support it for several reasons:
1)Bush is a republican
2) The democats got power back, they want to flex their muscles
3) the quoted post states the third reason
4) they're stupid and will come up with another reason to go against it

If the Democrats ditch this program, it will likely be for budgetary reasons and little else. Like I said, we're so far in debt, that we'll need to divert funds from a lot of areas in order to continue funding its development.

2006-11-12 22:17:52

#20

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

Its not about whether or not to build more ABMs. It is about not needing them.

2006-11-13 00:28:47

#21

beerface702: Member; +65|6967|las vegas

as far as MIRV's go the Peacekeeper, which could act as a anti-ballistic system/or direct too targeting system to kill was decommisioned last year in may.! why i dont know, i guess it was showing it's age

the AEGIS battlecruirser systems seem to be the new pick

and im sure the military is building a new MIRV system, but i havent been able to find any details on wiki

2006-11-13 02:12:01

#22

.:XDR:.PureFodder: Member; +105|7103

Trust me, the US military spend money on entirely more stupid and bizarre things. For example they are actively spending millions a year researching psychic powers, Star Trek teleporters, devices to fire confusing messages directly into the brains of enemy soldiers and (possibly most bizarrely) Hafnium dirty bombs, a weapon that is not only already proved not to work in the first place, but even if they could make one, the only people that would have any interest in one would be the enemies of the US.

This is according to Scientific American.

Spending money on a missile defense system is simple a huge waste of money. Nobody's stupid enough to launch an ICBM at the US because it's real easy to work out where the ICBM came from, the US has 10,000 nukes to send back.

Smuggling a warhead into the us is a much more likely scenario as you can't retaliate if you don't know where it came from.

2006-11-13 05:55:27

#23

AlbertWesker[RE]: Not Human Anymore; +144|6918|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would the Democrats not support it? What makes you bring Democrats into the topic at all????

Because of Democrats strong opposition to the exact same thing, in the 80's. Only reason you're seeing this is because the Dems finally figured it out in the 80's. Time to read a history book.

2006-11-13 06:05:32

#24

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6823|Southeastern USA

as predicted the whole "don't defend yourself, they'll think of another way" argument keeps coming up

Don't lock your door, they'll just come in through the window

2006-11-13 10:42:59

#25

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6920|Peoria

kr@cker wrote:
as predicted the whole "don't defend yourself, they'll think of another way" argument keeps coming up

Don't lock your door, they'll just come in through the window

Hehe, I don't need to lock my door when I'm packing a 12-gauge.

BF2S Forums Will Democrats support Bush's Missile Defense Technology?

d4rkst4r wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Phantom2828 wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

Phantom2828 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Board footer