It was designed to take out missiles from rogue nations but not really dangerous, powerful missiles like those belonging to the Russians, yes?M.O.A.B wrote:
I think you missed the point of what this system was designed for entirely. But I'm not going to bother explaining because it'd be like driving onto a roundabout and then having all exits blocked off and my brakes are dead.Braddock wrote:
Oh I forgot it was a defensive missile system that can't actually take down powerful long distance missiles... or could at least distinguish between Russian and non Russian missiles. Pretty cool system by the sound of things.usmarine wrote:
oh ya. i forgot people still dont know the difference.
Keywords: journal, sufficient evidence, interestingLotta_Drool wrote:
I once read that Hitler was a nice guy and was just burning Jews to stay warm because he ran out of fire wood.Uzique wrote:
I read an interesting journal that claimed there was sufficient evidence within the US government/military to suggest that America was mobilizing to annex Cuba; arguing that the Cubans signed deals with the Russians and set-up missile silos in an act of self-defence against what they saw as a hostile and intimidating threat. Keyword: 'Interesting', not unquestionably true. Hence the wink, it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek.Lotta_Drool wrote:
what? Even if you were talking about their belly button it wouldn't be less stupid.
Guess not a lot of people have read these alternative historical interpretations!
Wisen up.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
That's what it was designed for, but it would still be able to shoot down some variants of Russian missiles.Braddock wrote:
It was designed to take out missiles from rogue nations but not really dangerous, powerful missiles like those belonging to the Russians, yes?M.O.A.B wrote:
I think you missed the point of what this system was designed for entirely. But I'm not going to bother explaining because it'd be like driving onto a roundabout and then having all exits blocked off and my brakes are dead.Braddock wrote:
Oh I forgot it was a defensive missile system that can't actually take down powerful long distance missiles... or could at least distinguish between Russian and non Russian missiles. Pretty cool system by the sound of things.
I'd also consider a missile from a rogue state to be dangerous as well.
I will try to be smart like you.Uzique wrote:
Keywords: journal, sufficient evidence, interestingLotta_Drool wrote:
I once read that Hitler was a nice guy and was just burning Jews to stay warm because he ran out of fire wood.Uzique wrote:
I read an interesting journal that claimed there was sufficient evidence within the US government/military to suggest that America was mobilizing to annex Cuba; arguing that the Cubans signed deals with the Russians and set-up missile silos in an act of self-defence against what they saw as a hostile and intimidating threat. Keyword: 'Interesting', not unquestionably true. Hence the wink, it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Guess not a lot of people have read these alternative historical interpretations!
Wisen up.
pretty much.M.O.A.B wrote:
I think you missed the point of what this system was designed for entirely. But I'm not going to bother explaining because it'd be like driving onto a roundabout and then having all exits blocked off and my brakes are dead.Braddock wrote:
Oh I forgot it was a defensive missile system that can't actually take down powerful long distance missiles... or could at least distinguish between Russian and non Russian missiles. Pretty cool system by the sound of things.usmarine wrote:
oh ya. i forgot people still dont know the difference.
It's nothing to do with personal intelligence or 'smartness', just don't purposefully reply to my posts in an idiotic reductio ad absurdum manner. It's insulting to yourself, not my 'argument' or contribution.Lotta_Drool wrote:
I will try to be smart like you.Uzique wrote:
Keywords: journal, sufficient evidence, interestingLotta_Drool wrote:
I once read that Hitler was a nice guy and was just burning Jews to stay warm because he ran out of fire wood.
Wisen up.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-28 09:51:43)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
So it would in fact potentially compromise MAD?M.O.A.B wrote:
That's what it was designed for, but it would still be able to shoot down some variants of Russian missiles.Braddock wrote:
It was designed to take out missiles from rogue nations but not really dangerous, powerful missiles like those belonging to the Russians, yes?M.O.A.B wrote:
I think you missed the point of what this system was designed for entirely. But I'm not going to bother explaining because it'd be like driving onto a roundabout and then having all exits blocked off and my brakes are dead.
I'd also consider a missile from a rogue state to be dangerous as well.
NopeBraddock wrote:
So it would in fact potentially compromise MAD?M.O.A.B wrote:
That's what it was designed for, but it would still be able to shoot down some variants of Russian missiles.Braddock wrote:
It was designed to take out missiles from rogue nations but not really dangerous, powerful missiles like those belonging to the Russians, yes?
I'd also consider a missile from a rogue state to be dangerous as well.
Where did you get that from, some tool on youtube saying how much Russians suck?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Russia is weak now
Amerikkkan media propaganda.jord wrote:
Where did you get that from, some tool on youtube saying how much Russians suck?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Russia is weak now
The Cold War is still alive and well!
Kidding.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-28 12:00:49)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well if the defense system shoots down a Russian missile that was fired, wouldn't that mean Russia is attacking and the system is working?Braddock wrote:
So it would in fact potentially compromise MAD?M.O.A.B wrote:
That's what it was designed for, but it would still be able to shoot down some variants of Russian missiles.Braddock wrote:
It was designed to take out missiles from rogue nations but not really dangerous, powerful missiles like those belonging to the Russians, yes?
I'd also consider a missile from a rogue state to be dangerous as well.
Nah nah, if it shot down a Russian missile, that'd be declared offensive or something, probably .SgtHeihn wrote:
Well if the defense system shoots down a Russian missile that was fired, wouldn't that mean Russia is attacking and the system is working?Braddock wrote:
So it would in fact potentially compromise MAD?M.O.A.B wrote:
That's what it was designed for, but it would still be able to shoot down some variants of Russian missiles.
I'd also consider a missile from a rogue state to be dangerous as well.
The fact though that it could shoot down a Russian missile would not eliminate MAD, considering the sheer number of missiles Russia have.
But it would compromise MAD in that the scales would be tipped slightly in favour of America... any advantage, no matter how small, is still an advantage. Imagine Russia were to develop a slight edge in this regard, I don't think the US defence dept. would be too happy.M.O.A.B wrote:
Nah nah, if it shot down a Russian missile, that'd be declared offensive or something, probably .SgtHeihn wrote:
Well if the defense system shoots down a Russian missile that was fired, wouldn't that mean Russia is attacking and the system is working?Braddock wrote:
So it would in fact potentially compromise MAD?
The fact though that it could shoot down a Russian missile would not eliminate MAD, considering the sheer number of missiles Russia have.
According to wiki, Russia has roughly 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled. One missile defence system will do virtually nothing against that.
M.O.A.B wrote:
According to wiki, Russia has roughly 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled. One missile defence system will do virtually nothing against that.
Here's a comparison, large number of bombers coming in, you have one bullet, what's it going to do?Braddock wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
According to wiki, Russia has roughly 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled. One missile defence system will do virtually nothing against that.
Here's a scenario... Russia have shitloads of missiles just like the US has except more of the US missiles will get to their targets because they have a missile defence shield taking on the incoming Russian missiles.M.O.A.B wrote:
Here's a comparison, large number of bombers coming in, you have one bullet, what's it going to do?Braddock wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
According to wiki, Russia has roughly 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled. One missile defence system will do virtually nothing against that.
Right, considering that Russian missiles would go over the North Pole instead of Europe where the defence site would be.Braddock wrote:
Here's a scenario... Russia have shitloads of missiles just like the US has except more of the US missiles will get to their targets because they have a missile defence shield taking on the incoming Russian missiles.M.O.A.B wrote:
Here's a comparison, large number of bombers coming in, you have one bullet, what's it going to do?Braddock wrote:
Which direction are the Middle Eastern missiles going to attack you from in that case?M.O.A.B wrote:
Right, considering that Russian missiles would go over the North Pole instead of Europe where the defence site would be.Braddock wrote:
Here's a scenario... Russia have shitloads of missiles just like the US has except more of the US missiles will get to their targets because they have a missile defence shield taking on the incoming Russian missiles.M.O.A.B wrote:
Here's a comparison, large number of bombers coming in, you have one bullet, what's it going to do?
Considering that Europe is directly west of the ME, that way.Braddock wrote:
Which direction are the Middle Eastern missiles going to attack you from in that case?M.O.A.B wrote:
Right, considering that Russian missiles would go over the North Pole instead of Europe where the defence site would be.Braddock wrote:
Here's a scenario... Russia have shitloads of missiles just like the US has except more of the US missiles will get to their targets because they have a missile defence shield taking on the incoming Russian missiles.
Honestly, you really think the USA wants to nuke the living shit out of Russia?Braddock wrote:
But it would compromise MAD in that the scales would be tipped slightly in favour of America... any advantage, no matter how small, is still an advantage. Imagine Russia were to develop a slight edge in this regard, I don't think the US defence dept. would be too happy.M.O.A.B wrote:
Nah nah, if it shot down a Russian missile, that'd be declared offensive or something, probably .SgtHeihn wrote:
Well if the defense system shoots down a Russian missile that was fired, wouldn't that mean Russia is attacking and the system is working?
The fact though that it could shoot down a Russian missile would not eliminate MAD, considering the sheer number of missiles Russia have.
You're giving the Middle Eastern 'bad guys' far too much credit in my opinion, the idea of them hitting you from the Middle East is preposterous...M.O.A.B wrote:
Considering that Europe is directly west of the ME, that way.Braddock wrote:
Which direction are the Middle Eastern missiles going to attack you from in that case?M.O.A.B wrote:
Right, considering that Russian missiles would go over the North Pole instead of Europe where the defence site would be.
No, but anything that potentially compromises mutually assured destruction destabilizes the uneasy peace that has existed between the two powers since WW2.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Honestly, you really think the USA wants to nuke the living shit out of Russia?Braddock wrote:
But it would compromise MAD in that the scales would be tipped slightly in favour of America... any advantage, no matter how small, is still an advantage. Imagine Russia were to develop a slight edge in this regard, I don't think the US defence dept. would be too happy.M.O.A.B wrote:
Nah nah, if it shot down a Russian missile, that'd be declared offensive or something, probably .
The fact though that it could shoot down a Russian missile would not eliminate MAD, considering the sheer number of missiles Russia have.
People once thought flying was preposterous.Braddock wrote:
You're giving the Middle Eastern 'bad guys' far too much credit in my opinion, the idea of them hitting you from the Middle East is preposterous...M.O.A.B wrote:
Considering that Europe is directly west of the ME, that way.Braddock wrote:
Which direction are the Middle Eastern missiles going to attack you from in that case?
http://www.nature-worldwide.info/images/world_map.jpg
You are preposterous. I just can't get my head around the right wing mentality sometimes... when people talk about hijacking planes and flying them into buildings it gets dismissed as unrealistic and not worthy of serious consideration but when you put forward the idea of someone like Iran developing a missile that can travel half the planet and still reach it intended target it is considered perfectly plausible, lulz.M.O.A.B wrote:
People once thought flying was preposterous.Braddock wrote:
You're giving the Middle Eastern 'bad guys' far too much credit in my opinion, the idea of them hitting you from the Middle East is preposterous...M.O.A.B wrote:
Considering that Europe is directly west of the ME, that way.
http://www.nature-worldwide.info/images/world_map.jpg