Because resources are finite.
Because resources are finite.
Which I addressed in my response, and you purposefully omitted. I think the intransigence vs. stupidity question is hereby resolved. Thank you for your cooperation.
I omitted it because I didn't want to embarass you further by pointing out that you had made yet another factually incorrect assertion. But if you want to embarass yourself.
You asserted "It's not like the same resources are expended on both options." This, of course, is factually incorrect.
Which, of course, you're eager to qualify? I kind of took it for granted that astronautical scientists, mechanical and electical engineers and programmers weren't generally invited along with CIA saboteurs, but maybe you know better.
Or maybe not.
Suffice to say, "too liberal for my taste". However, at 25, that is to be expected.
You young folks repeatedly demonstrate the crisis in education. You get plenty of liberal indoctrination, and not enough of the 3 R's.
For example, your reading.............
Did you somehow miss this when I replied to you?:
Was it poor reading, or was it a purposeful attempt to put words in my posts?
At least I know who I'm replying to, genius. Enjoying the sig line? I can do better if you want.
Whatever, Corps...
Corps, beeps, jocko... seen one ...
That really is what this comes down to, isn't it?
Now, if we were fighting about that, instead of who owns the oil, maybe we would have the necessary resources to cope with an insane, failing dictatorship.
Oh, wait, that's what we're doing. Or so we're told ...
Once again, Jocko shows his ability to reduce any debate to a personal insult.
News at 11.
That's old enough to get around in the world. I'd been to war, back, got married, was in my 2nd home, and had two kids by that age.
You could be in Iraq right now and see a really great example of tribalism.
You can even see it in Southcentral Los Angeles, if you had the courage and recklessness to drive through to see it.
Even the "better idea"?
So, you just like condemning and obfuscating, and have no better ideas?
No way. I oppose indiscriminate carpet bombing unless in a total war situation (which is where appeasement ends up).
I'm also not quite ready to withhold all humanitarian aid yet.
I am all in favor of taking out Kim's nuclear and missile building facilities in a tactical airstrike today.
Yes, as long as Kim is alive, the threat exists. Take out the NBC and delivery capability, and give him time to die.
There are more: possible coup (unlikely), and Kim's natural death are among the possibilities.
Do you think that means that WWIII isn't coming?
It is widely believed (and I agree) that the Cold War actually was a decent glue holding the world in two halves.
Now we have tribalism, globalism, fundamentalism, environmentalism, and a few other "isms" tearing the world apart in many pieces.
We may be as close to world war as we were during the Cold War years, with less of a chance to avert it as when there were just two sides talking.......
Last edited:
May we have the ABM missiles allocated to protecting your part of the country, please?
Unbelievable.
And the rest of us are somehow required to go along with your brand of "self-defense"?
Remarkable.
Explain how you "sabotage the missile on the pad".
Have you ever been on a "pad"? Ever been around a launching missile? Seen how fast a missile can be deployed from a hardened silo?
Any of that on the friendly side of the war zone?
How are you going to sabotage a North Korean missile in North Korea moments before launch?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,592
I didn't even imply it.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,592
I don't know why, I saw his fundamentalism quickly after reading only a handful of his posts.
I'm sorry this thread has turned into a series of personal attacks. You people have really mischaracterized the ability of such systems to work. It's true that we can't protect against a massive attack by the former Soviet Union but a single missile from North Korea is a far simpler mission. I'd like to give details but that's all I can say.
But even assuming the missile defense system works as advertised, we *can't* shoot down a missile the way George Bush thinks it can, not yet anyway. The kill vehicle is designed to destroy the warhead, not the missile. To destroy the missile, we need something that works in the boost phase, and we don't have that yet. From an engineering point of view, the North Korean test objectives are met once the missile burns out. After that, the Koreans don't need to care what happens to the vehicle, so even if we did hit the remains of their launch vehicle with our interceptor, we haven't proven anything. The Koreans have their data, and we have proven we can hit a *missile* not a warhead. A missile is a much larger target so you critics of the ABM system will not be satisfied (and justifiably so).
If the North Koreans are smart, they'll put a small payload in orbit. This would allow them the test data they need and they can deny that they were conducting a missile test. It's the same thing the Russians did with Sputnik. If you can put something in a desired orbit, your engineers will have the confidence that they can hit a target in another country. I wish I could say why this is so but I'd rather not.
I'd also like to add that many of you need to read up on your history. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro wanted to launch atomic bombs at the US, but the USSR wouldn't let him. Castro even admitted that he knew Cuba would be destroyed if he did this, but he was willing to die and have his country destroyed just so he could drop bombs on us. Sure, I know this doesn't prove that Kim is just as foolish as Castro was back in the 60's, but please realize that it is possible to have a severly deluded person in charge of a country.
But even assuming the missile defense system works as advertised, we *can't* shoot down a missile the way George Bush thinks it can, not yet anyway. The kill vehicle is designed to destroy the warhead, not the missile. To destroy the missile, we need something that works in the boost phase, and we don't have that yet. From an engineering point of view, the North Korean test objectives are met once the missile burns out. After that, the Koreans don't need to care what happens to the vehicle, so even if we did hit the remains of their launch vehicle with our interceptor, we haven't proven anything. The Koreans have their data, and we have proven we can hit a *missile* not a warhead. A missile is a much larger target so you critics of the ABM system will not be satisfied (and justifiably so).
If the North Koreans are smart, they'll put a small payload in orbit. This would allow them the test data they need and they can deny that they were conducting a missile test. It's the same thing the Russians did with Sputnik. If you can put something in a desired orbit, your engineers will have the confidence that they can hit a target in another country. I wish I could say why this is so but I'd rather not.
I'd also like to add that many of you need to read up on your history. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro wanted to launch atomic bombs at the US, but the USSR wouldn't let him. Castro even admitted that he knew Cuba would be destroyed if he did this, but he was willing to die and have his country destroyed just so he could drop bombs on us. Sure, I know this doesn't prove that Kim is just as foolish as Castro was back in the 60's, but please realize that it is possible to have a severly deluded person in charge of a country.
CRIPES!
What kind of faith system involves avoiding spiritual death by advocating the killing of millions?
Faith in God in no way prohibits justifiable warfare.
I consider myself somewhat moderate. In some issues I'm very conservative, and in some I'm very liberal. Overall, I think I tend to lean toward the right.
That's what a moderate is, isn't it? Overall, near the middle (not on each and every issue, but on the average of issues opined on?)
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,592
Lack of a reasonable justification does, though.
Many extremsists do.
You are so far slanted to the right that the rest of the world looks left from your perspective.
Elind
Philosopher
What weaknesses would that be? I always thought that the whole point about these capabilities was proving that they work. They aren't worth a damn as deterrent if nobody think it works. A miss would not be good propaganda, but it would be very valuable for improvement and it has hit in past tests, so what do you think the Koreans could learn?
Elind
Philosopher
What makes you think they can do that? Possibly reducing the payload significantly might give it the power to put a token mass in orbit, but the mechanics of doing that are far more difficult than launching on a suborbital ballistic trajectory and they have probably not got that much more spare research capability, nor even the tracking to verify if something did reach orbit.
Also a miss could easily result in a reentry over the US, which would be the best possible excuse we could have to bomb all their launch site (1?). They do not have a mobile launch capability.
Elind
Philosopher
What's your point? What's the downside of acting, as opposed to the downside of not acting?
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Suffice to say, "too liberal for my taste". However, at 25, that is to be expected.
A nice, safe, meaningless response.