Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
FY 2005 Budget Request for Missile Defense: $10.2 billion
FY 2005 Budget Request for Port Security grants: $46 million
Comparing these two numbers directly will be somewhat inaccurate because the missle defense spending will produce benefits over some number of future years and most of the port security spending will be for that year only. So a ratio of 241:1 might be misleading, so let's use a ratio of 100:1.
So, given the goal of ensuring that no nuclear device is detonated in the U.S. in the near future, is it reasonable to assume that the delivery system is 100 times more likely to be an ICBM launched from another continent than it is to be a shipping container?
The interceptor launch sites are currently being built in Alaska which will provide a chance to hit ground-launched missles from China or North Korea. Those sites, however, will be useless against submarine launched missles.
Why would any country launch a ground-based ICBM against the US? Such missles have an unmistakable, immediately-recognized return address. We can have a hundred missles in the air ( launched from positions all over the globe) before the first enemy missle hits the ground.
Shouldn't money be taken from the missle defense program (which has already been investigated by the FBI for fraud) and spent on other defense programs, like port security (which will detect not only fissonable material, but biological agents as well)?
FY 2005 Budget Request for Port Security grants: $46 million
Comparing these two numbers directly will be somewhat inaccurate because the missle defense spending will produce benefits over some number of future years and most of the port security spending will be for that year only. So a ratio of 241:1 might be misleading, so let's use a ratio of 100:1.
So, given the goal of ensuring that no nuclear device is detonated in the U.S. in the near future, is it reasonable to assume that the delivery system is 100 times more likely to be an ICBM launched from another continent than it is to be a shipping container?
The interceptor launch sites are currently being built in Alaska which will provide a chance to hit ground-launched missles from China or North Korea. Those sites, however, will be useless against submarine launched missles.
Why would any country launch a ground-based ICBM against the US? Such missles have an unmistakable, immediately-recognized return address. We can have a hundred missles in the air ( launched from positions all over the globe) before the first enemy missle hits the ground.
Shouldn't money be taken from the missle defense program (which has already been investigated by the FBI for fraud) and spent on other defense programs, like port security (which will detect not only fissonable material, but biological agents as well)?
