Disarmament and A New Generation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Nuclear ordinance CANNOT be used in any kind of sensible defensive application, so the argument that it will make America more susceptible to attack is flawed. The only defense nuclear ordinance provides is a mental one, a deterrent to launch any kind of direct strike for fear of nuclear retaliation.

---

Semantics. Mental deterrent in this situation is defense. Remove that deterrent and the threat of nuclear attack on America will be more likely (not inevitable, but more probable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

if terrorists ever pull off a successful nuclear strike I'm sure there are better ways of "getting back at them" than nuking every probable location they may be in.

---

There are better reasons for responding than "getting back at them". What if they had two nukes? They're terrorists, they're hard to get that kind of information on. Are you willing to risk Ottawa if they wiped Toronto off the map?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepy1212

Semantics. Mental deterrent in this situation is defense. Remove that deterrent and the threat of nuclear attack on America will be more likely (not inevitable, but more probable).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

AmericaNATO should be focused on creating technologies to counter conventional missile or rocket based nuclear attacks if they want a truly defensive solution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepy1212

There are better reasons for responding than "getting back at them". What if they had two nukes? They're terrorists, they're hard to get that kind of information on. Are you willing to risk Ottawa if they wiped Toronto off the map?

---

"Getting back at them" was my way of describing all the reasons one might want to respond. Either way, a nuclear attack against terrorists would never fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

"Getting back at them" was my way of describing all the reasons one might want to respond. Either way, a nuclear attack against terrorists would never fly.

---

I only agree here because it's difficult to locate them and, when we do, it's usually among the uninvolved population. Sovereign states are another matter. Where most countries have no control over the terrorists living among them people do have control over their elected officials, or rather, most countries have systems in which the citizenry is complicit. We do, however, have a few 'dictatorships' on our hands: N. Korea., Venezuela, Iran, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

NATO should be focused on creating technologies to counter conventional missile or rocket based nuclear attacks if they want a truly defensive solution.

---

That's what MAD is all about in the ABM Treaty. If two countries construct defenses the tendency is to create missiles to defeat them. Defenses, in theory, would only provoke a launch. If they only make missiles then the situation becomes a game of 'one-upsmanship' until one hits the economic ceiling. The other will take it another step then basically stop while neither ever fires a single rocket because of MAD. I'm basically paraphrasing half a chapter of The Blind Watchmaker here. The defenses would have to be perfect, and ubiquitously known perfect, to have effect.

Needs more anti-missile lazerz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepy1212

If they only make missiles then the situation becomes a game of 'one-upsmanship' until one hits the economic ceiling. The other will take it another step then basically stop while neither ever fires a single rocket because of MAD.

---

Hence SALT I and SALT II and the end of the cold war. "shit, guys, we're both almost broke and we wouldn't be superpowers anymore now what?" "Well shit I don't want to stop being a superpower." "Me neither."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Needs more anti-missile lazerz

---

whoop USA and Russia

Is that X-Band radar project still going? Last I heard they were getting good results, but they had problems distinguishing the actual warhead from decoy warheads released by the ICBM in orbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Needs more anti-missile lazerz

---

Orbital Ion Cannon in 5...4...3...2...:realsmug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Needs more anti-missile lazerz

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepy1212

I only agree here because it's difficult to locate them and, when we do, it's usually among the uninvolved population.

---

This. The thing about terrorists and radical groups is that they're smart. They don't hide in caves and mountains out in the middle of BFE; they hide and operate in populated areas and use civilians essentially as hostages/meat shields. If you want to eradicate the threat via missiles, there's really no way to do it without harming and killing the civilians, which just makes us look bad. Then, the terrorist groups play the footage of us bombing the civilians and use it to recruit more people to their cause.

Keep it on-topic, guys. Shoop-da-woop orbital cannon uber laser stuff stays outside TGB section, ok? (:

thanks duders~