Missile Defense - Fuck in the arse or good defense strategy?

[MKSheppard]

1) They have done exactly how many successful ICBM tests?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm

Working on one since 1987.

Jesus Shep, these people are dictators, not religious fundementalists.

Except Kim Dong Small IS a fundie nutter. The guy is more than a few bushels
short of a full load.

[MKSheppard]

I doubt he's enough of a raving loony to think that Los Angeles is a fair trade for us turning South Korea into an island free of charge

This is a man who bases his entire perception of america on American
movies. Definitely not one who I want behind the NK button.

while he was busy running Operation Ignore on the antiterrorism plan handed to him by the outgoing Clinton Administration.

Which had yielded precisely jack shit by the Clintonites. After every terrorist
attack, your boy Bubba liked to launch a shitload of TLAMs at the
nearest tent with a camel, wasting millions of dollars for no effect.

I like Bush's anti terror plans a lot more - Shoot them in the back of
the head with a silenced pistol in the middle of the night, or blow
them up in a combined airmobile operation in Afghanistan.

Bush isn't afraid to pull the trigger on these scum, while your boy bubba
had teams of lawyers go over every operation to determine if it was
legal

[Stormbringer]

1) They have done exactly how many successful ICBM tests?

None, they don't have Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles yet. The point is that the have medium range ballistic missles and they can easily (and are trying) to make the step to full fledged ICBMs. There are been a number of successfuly tests of their medium range missles and in fact they've scared the shit out of Japan and the US by firing them off over Japan.

2) Ever hear of a little thing called MAD? Well in this case, it isn't even MAD. It's simply AD, Assured Destruction. They may be Totalitarian, but that just means that they want to hang onto their power more then ever, not throw it away by commiting suicide. Jesus Shep, these people are dictators, not religious fundementalists.

Think that's going to stop a nutcase like Kim Jong-Il if he feels threatened enough? You think that'd stop him from taking down the US if we actually managed to get him out of power? There have been plenty of "great leaders" willing to see their country smashed to peices so they can hold onto power. Nukes just make the process more efficient.

[The Kernel]

Bush isn't afraid to pull the trigger on these scum, while your boy bubba
had teams of lawyers go over every operation to determine if it was
legal

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

[Stormbringer]

Bush isn't afraid to pull the trigger on these scum, while your boy bubba
had teams of lawyers go over every operation to determine if it was
legal

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

Yet there are a number of times he had the oppurtunity yet never gave the go ahead.

[MKSheppard]

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

Then why isn't Osama dead? Makes me think it was a half ass effort. We
on the other hand, dropped 2,000 pound bombs on his head, and sent
in airborne troopers and special forces after his ass back in the Tora Bora
days during Fall 2001. We may have gotten him then, i dunno.

[Nathan F]

Bush isn't afraid to pull the trigger on these scum, while your boy bubba
had teams of lawyers go over every operation to determine if it was
legal

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

Yet there are a number of times he had the oppurtunity yet never gave the go ahead.

Like the time he was watching golf and couldn't be disturbed, even though we had him in our sights. Ah, the things you learn from the book 'Deriliction of Duty'.

[Stormbringer]

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

Yet there are a number of times he had the oppurtunity yet never gave the go ahead.

Like the time he was watching golf and couldn't be disturbed, even though we had him in our sights. Ah, the things you learn from the book 'Deriliction of Duty'.

Yup, calling it half-ass is being awfully generous.

[The Kernel]

None, they don't have Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles yet. The point is that the have medium range ballistic missles and they can easily (and are trying) to make the step to full fledged ICBMs. There are been a number of successfuly tests of their medium range missles and in fact they've scared the shit out of Japan and the US by firing them off over Japan.

Fine, so lets put pressure to make sure he DOESN'T develop them. No argument here. But wasting countless dollars on missile defense is NOT the way to go about this when there are much easier and cheaper avenues open to us.

Think that's going to stop a nutcase like Kim Jong-Il if he feels threatened enough? You think that'd stop him from taking down the US if we actually managed to get him out of power? There have been plenty of "great leaders" willing to see their country smashed to peices so they can hold onto power. Nukes just make the process more efficient.

Name one leader who was willing to see his country destroyed by weapons of mass destruction to accomplish little more than a trivial blow against an enemy. Can you think of any?

You don't get this do you? For all his bluster, Kim Jong-Il wants preciecely ONE thing. To remain in power. The only way that he'd use nukes against us is if he felt he had nothing to lose by doing so. Fortunately, he has a great deal to lose by doing so. You think a man that is as hedonistic and power crazed as that will want to give up that lifestyle? If he nuked the United States, he would be forfeiting his power, money and family. No one would shield him against the overwhelming US reprisal.

[The Kernel]

Bush isn't afraid to pull the trigger on these scum, while your boy bubba
had teams of lawyers go over every operation to determine if it was
legal

Are you forgetting that Clinton ordered the CIA to assasinate Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing? He took a lot of flak for it too.

Yet there are a number of times he had the oppurtunity yet never gave the go ahead.

Excuse me but BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Your going to have to be more specific if you want me to take THAT seriously.

[MKSheppard]

Fine, so lets put pressure to make sure he DOESN'T develop them. No argument here. But wasting countless dollars on missile defense is NOT the way to go about this when there are much easier and cheaper avenues open to us.

Like bribing them with money and fuel oil to keep them from developing their
Bomb program?

That Clinton brainstorm worked out so well

Name one leader who was willing to see his country destroyed by weapons of mass destruction to accomplish little more than a trivial blow against an enemy. Can you think of any?

Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler at any point in 1945. Course, it was weapons
of mass conventional destruction via the Red Army, but still.

[The Kernel]

Like bribing them with money and fuel oil to keep them from developing their
Bomb program?

That Clinton brainstorm worked out so well

Shep please, we explored the possibility with NK under Clinton, but there were never any concessions made. Bush is also exploring that possibility.

Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler at any point in 1945. Course, it was weapons
of mass conventional destruction via the Red Army, but still.

Hitler certainly took the cake on that one, I'll grant you. But it still isn't the same. He let his country get burned around him, but he never had to face the possiblity of total destruction. Remember that until Nuremberg, the concept of accountibility for wartime activities was relatively unknown.

[Stormbringer]

Fine, so lets put pressure to make sure he DOESN'T develop them. No argument here. But wasting countless dollars on missile defense is NOT the way to go about this when there are much easier and cheaper avenues open to us.

That would be preferable. But the problem is they already have ballistic missle technology and can develop ICBMs. And the fact is non-proliferation policies don't work, they haven't stopped Korea, Iran, or plenty of other from buying or selling missle technology. Hell, the Russians and Chinese who do have ICBMs have been accussed of selling missle technology.

The problem is what to do about the states that do have them.

Name one leader who was willing to see his country destroyed by weapons of mass destruction to accomplish little more than a trivial blow against an enemy. Can you think of any?

The problem isn't what happens when they're safe and stable, it's what happens when they're under pressure. And people like Kim Jong-Il have no problem trying to take the world down with them if they fall.

You don't get this do you? For all his bluster, Kim Jong-Il wants preciecely ONE thing. To remain in power. The only way that he'd use nukes against us is if he felt he had nothing to lose by doing so. Fortunately, he has a great deal to lose by doing so. You think a man that is as hedonistic and power crazed as that will want to give up that lifestyle? If he nuked the United States, he would be forfeiting his power, money and family. No one would shield him against the overwhelming US reprisal.

Of course he stands to lose, the problem is we're putting pressure on him and if he doesn't have anything to loose he might damn well push the button. It's not what happens when he's safe, it's when he's under pressure we have to worry.

[Stormbringer]

Excuse me but BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Your going to have to be more specific if you want me to take THAT seriously.

As Nathan F pointed out, Colonel Patterson's book: Dereliction of Duty

[Stormbringer]

Shep please, we explored the possibility with NK under Clinton, but there were never any concessions made. Bush is also exploring that possibility.

Yes, because we can buy off the crazy man.

[MKSheppard]

Shep please, we explored the possibility with NK under Clinton, but there were never any concessions made. Bush is also exploring that possibility.

You're a fucking liar, shut the fuck up you lying sack of shit.

1994 Agreed Framework mean nothing to your masturbatory Clinton
loving fetish?

[Stuart Mackey]

Clearly if we'd had BMD in 2001, we would have been able to stop the terrorists when they launched a series of slow-moving, predictable ballistic missiles into major American landmarks...

Oh, wait...

Naughty naughty, thats a strawman and you know it. BMD is clearly not designed to defend against that kind of threat and no one pretends that it does.

[MKSheppard]

Quoth GS.org

In 1994 the United States seriously considered using force to halt the North Korean development of nuclear weapons. A diplomatic solution was brokered and with the participation of Japan and South Korea, the United States agreed to supply fuel oil and build light-water reactors in exchange for North Korean cessation of nuclear weapons development.

...

In accordance with the terms of the 1994 framework, the US Government in January 1995 responded to North Korea's decision to freeze its nuclear program and cooperate with US and IAEA verification efforts by easing economic sanctions against North Korea in four areas through:

Authorizing transactions related to telecommunications connections, credit card use for personal or travel-related transactions, and the opening of journalists' offices;

Authorizing D.P.R.K. use of the U.S. banking system to clear transactions not originating or terminating in the United States and unblocking frozen assets where there is no D.P.R.K. Government interest;
Authorizing imports of magnesite, a refractory material used in the U.S. steel industry--North Korea and China are the world's primary sources of this raw material; and

Authorizing transactions related to future establishment of liaison offices, case-by-case participation of U.S. companies in the light water reactor project, supply of alternative energy, and disposition of spent nuclear fuel as provided for by the agreed framework, in a manner consistent with applicable laws.

[Iceberg]

Excuse me but BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Your going to have to be more specific if you want me to take THAT seriously.

As Nathan F pointed out, Colonel Patterson's book: Dereliction of Duty

That's not specific, fuckwit. It's also published by a publisher (Regnery) known for printing any lying screed so long as it attacks Bill Clinton (all three of Ann Coulter's books come immediately to mind).

[MKSheppard]

That's not specific, fuckwit.

I'll take Col. Patterson's word over yours fuckwit. Anyone who is trusted
to walk around with the god damn nuclear launch codes chained to their
wrist by the US Government is good enough for me.

[Stormbringer]

Excuse me but BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Your going to have to be more specific if you want me to take THAT seriously.

As Nathan F pointed out, Colonel Patterson's book: Dereliction of Duty

That's not specific, fuckwit. It's also published by a publisher (Regnery) known for printing any lying screed so long as it attacks Bill Clinton (all three of Ann Coulter's books come immediately to mind).

And what evidence do you have that Col. Patterson is lying? He's not a political commentator but a former USAF Officer. Simply dimissing a senior officer like that simply because of the publisher doesn't address the point at all.

[The Kernel]

That would be preferable. But the problem is they already have ballistic missle technology and can develop ICBMs. And the fact is non-proliferation policies don't work, they haven't stopped Korea, Iran, or plenty of other from buying or selling missle technology. Hell, the Russians and Chinese who do have ICBMs have been accussed of selling missle technology.

I agree that we need to stem the tide of nuclear prolifiration, I just don't think that SDI is the way to do it. Economic incentives for countries that agree to weapons inspections might be a decent approach and has been fielded by several administrations.

In the case of North Korea in particular, I think that they are just blowing smoke while looking for us to relax trade sanctions. It might be worth exploring if they agree to certain provisions including full nuclear disarmerment.

Of course he stands to lose, the problem is we're putting pressure on him and if he doesn't have anything to loose he might damn well push the button. It's not what happens when he's safe, it's when he's under pressure we have to worry.

Even if we grant that, do you really think it will go that far? Do you think he would rather destroy his country then relax his totalitarian policies and agree to disarm?

[The Kernel]

And what evidence do you have that Col. Patterson is lying? He's not a political commentator but a former USAF Officer. Simply dimissing a senior officer like that simply because of the publisher doesn't address the point at all.

It looks very interesting, but could you provide a specific example of an action Clinton took that prevented the capture or death of Bin Laden? And the Jordanian back-door thing doesn't count.

[Iceberg]

That's not specific, fuckwit.

I'll take Col. Patterson's word over yours fuckwit. Anyone who is trusted
to walk around with the god damn nuclear launch codes chained to their
wrist by the US Government is good enough for me.

How about Sandy Berger, Shep? He's said that some of the incidents Patterson reports are false (such as the golf-game accusation). That should clue you in to the fact that Patterson might not be the most honest Lieutenant Colonel ever commissioned in the United States Air Force.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Hitler certainly took the cake on that one, I'll grant you. But it still isn't the same. He let his country get burned around him, but he never had to face the possiblity of total destruction. Remember that until Nuremberg, the concept of accountibility for wartime activities was relatively unknown.

1814-1815 Napoleon, St Helena. Not relitivly unknown, so much as ability or willingness to do so.