Disarmament and A New Generation

This is old but I want to start a discussion about the ramifications of disarming our nukes.
With Obama making deals with Russia about disarming both of our nuclear weapons, many fear that this would make us weaker to those trying to destroy us, like Al Qaeda. In this new century, it's not as complicated to build a nuclear weapon as it once was. All you need is a college graduate and nuclear material. And with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Uranium is bound to be floating around out there.

I want to know what you believe will come of this.

Personally, I like the idea of nuclear disarmament, as it is too destructive of a weapon. Whether we have nukes or not, I don't think it would make much difference to radicals trying to destroy the U.S.

The US and Russia seized 99% of the nuclear materials that existed in the former USSR outside of Russia in the 1990's. As for being able to make nuclear weapons out of just about anything, you're right. Know what a major byproduct of fission power is? Neptunium, which only needs a C-Mass of 7kg. What would the ensuing explosion look like? I have no idea. But yeah, not hard to make nukes. Unfortunately with nuclear proliferation proceeding at its current rate, with numerous countries being inundated with nuclear materials (Venezuela, N. Korea, Iran), and the ability to refine them, I believe that a large nuclear deterrent provides a positive field of play so as to discourage manufacture of nuclear weapons. Along with the deterrent, there is also the UN, which provides a stop gap via inspection. That's not to say that if a person or persons really wanted to build a nuclear weapon that they couldn't. I'm just saying that the threat of wholesale nuclear retaliation is a definite possibility, and I'm not even sure Osama Bin Laden would be willing to put the people around him (Afghani & Pakistani) at risk like that. Most of what I'm saying is a broad sweeping generalization, but I believe it's in the ballpark.

Disarmament is a decent enough idea but right now it looks like a setup. Big countries will agree but look at Israel and Iran. We asked them to disarm and Iran says, "We will when Israel does" and Israel says, "We will when Iran does."

This goes one of two ways:

Iran says ok and the UN forces Irael to follow but Iran reneges like many suspect they would and bombs the shit out of defenseless Israel and no one else can do much about it because they got rid of their nukes too.

Neither disarms and everyone blames Israel for ruining world peace. Which is pretty likely considering Obama recently turned his back on our only ally in the region.

In the end it will all work out just like gun laws, the bad guys will still have them.

So far the best deterrent to nuclear war is having nukes.


btw, debate forum?

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. In this day and age I really don't think "nukes" will ever be used in any situation less than global nuclear war (Country X launches nukes at Country Z, Country Z launches nukes at Country X). If terrorists used a nuclear device on America the likely response would most likely be one similar to the one after 9-11, military forces are sent in, etc, etc...

I'm all for global nuclear disarmament, 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.

^ Pretty much agree with Freelancer. Even in the event of a nuclear attack on the Western world, it would be hard selling the idea that the right thing to do is nuke back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

... Along with the deterrent, there is also the UN, which provides a stop gap via inspection.

---

But look at Israel in 1986(?)
They built false control panels and abrupt walls in certain areas to show inspectors that they only had a laboratory, yet right under their feet weapons-grade Uranium was being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanctus

But look at Israel in 1986(?)
They built false control panels and abrupt walls in certain areas to show inspectors that they only had a laboratory, yet right under their feet weapons-grade Uranium was being made.

---

See: Stop gap & " That's not to say that if a person or persons really wanted to build a nuclear weapon that they couldn't."

Freelancer, you're definitely right about the defensive usage of nuclear arms if something like a decentralized opponent attacked us. But if a sovereign nation attacked us? I'm not so sure.

Oh ok, I get the stop-gap thing now.
Yeah, I agree with Freelancer too. Yet I'm not so sure a sovereign nation would readily nuke us either Coj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

But if a sovereign nation attacked us? I'm not so sure.

---

It's not right to assume that everyone in that country would have supported the action, so nuking them back wouldn't be justified. You'd still start by responding with a standard invasion or assault. If you're going to fight a war, keep it between the armies.

The thing is, if a nation attacked America then you wouldn't be defending yourselves by launching a nuclear attack of your own, you'd be attacking them in turn. In the case of national nuclear warfare the "attacker" and "defender" is decided by a few minutes, the time it takes one nation to realize nuclear weapons have been launched at them and the time it takes to respond by launching your own.

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

Meanwhile Canada is sitting pretty with no nuclear weapons to speak of. http://leimg.lancersedge.com/images/...8387031285.gif

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~

Look up the concept of mutually assured destruction.

That's what I think is most likely if a soverign nation SERIOUSLY attempts at attacking us.

The only countries with the capability to go to full-out war with America are either allies with America (i.e. western Europe) or simply are too occupied with making money from trade with America (i.e. China).

Having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is pretty pointless. The entire defense budget is ridiculous anyway, wasting good money on building super weapons that won't even be aggressively deployed anyway.

It doesn't matter if you build a giant wall around the country with super guns on every square inch, the terrorists won't be fazed, if they want to attack they will attack, it's a matter of whether counter-intelligence can avert it or not and certainly several thousand nuclear missiles doesn't change a thing.

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bravo22

The only countries with the capability to go to full-out war with America are either allies with America (i.e. western Europe) or simply are too occupied with making money from trade with America (i.e. China).

Having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is pretty pointless. The entire defense budget is ridiculous anyway, wasting good money on building super weapons that won't even be aggressively deployed anyway.

It doesn't matter if you build a giant wall around the country with super guns on every square inch, the terrorists won't be fazed, if they want to attack they will attack, it's a matter of whether counter-intelligence can avert it or not and certainly several thousand nuclear missiles doesn't change a thing.

---

The reason having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is important, is because you scare off other countries. The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force. Theres a special word for it but I cant remember it.

QUOTE=Dwood;532747]Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.[/QUOTE]
:neckbeard:, you have NO idea what your talking about, Europe doesnt boast about their nuclear missiles, unlike the US. However we have alot of firepower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwood

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

---

So that's why the allies, have nearly equal number of troops in engagements and were requested by your own government to help out with the iraq invasion.
I cannot wait for snafubar to come in and shred you like a orange peel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwood

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

---

U.S.A. PERSONNEL
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000 [2008]

U.K. PERSONNEL
Total Population: 60,943,912 [2008]
Population Available: 28,855,100 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 23,738,184 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 784,520 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 195,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 233,860 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 0 [2008]

That's nothing to shake a fist at, and it's hardly "teeny" since they're the 5th largest military nation. Canadian statistics for patriotism:

CANADIAN PERSONNEL
Total Population: 33,212,696 [2008]
Population Available: 15,885,472 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 13,064,205 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 442,991 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 62,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 25,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 9,350 [2008]

Ranked 23rd :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

The reason having a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles is important, is because you scare off other countries. The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force. Theres a special word for it but I cant remember it.

---

It's called second strike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

The reason North Korea hasnt set off any, is because they know the US will retaliate with full force.

---

But isn't there the risk of fallout spreading to nearby South Korea, China, and Russia and contaminating areas in those countries? None of these countries are involved in the conflict (unless you count how China sells arms to the KPA, but as of now China's not interested in picking a fight with America). The Chinese and Russian governments may not be nice people, but they seem to like money a lot more than explosions. As for crushing the North Korean army, the American forces can do that with ease without any nukes (plus western Europe and South Korea would probably help out), the one thing America probably can't do is stamp out the Korean fighting spirit, as evidenced by the insurgency situation in Iraq.

Maybe having several nukes on hand is a good psychological deterrent, but many thousands is just overdoing it. And the actual threat right now (terrorism) doesn't seem deterred by the presence of America's big guns and big bombs.

The question is, which is the bigger threat, terrorists, or a nuclear attack from another country? To be honest, you need to be prepared for both of these situations. Like you said these are used as a psychological deterrent, and considering N. Korea is apparently reported to thousands of nuclear warheads, I'd say having more is better.

There is a risk of fallout, there is the risk of the earth getting blown to smithereens and everyone being vaporized if countries start to shoot of nukes all over the place. That is why we have politics and hopefully, it will never come that sort of action.

And yeah, second strike is what I was thinking Bod :D, I thought of first strike but thats a preemptive strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bravo22

As for crushing the North Korean army, the American forces can do that with ease without any nukes (plus western Europe and South Korea would probably help out), the one thing America probably can't do is stamp out the Korean fighting spirit, as evidenced by the insurgency situation in Iraq.
America has been down that road before and we all know how that went down.

Maybe having several nukes on hand is a good psychological deterrent, but many thousands is just overdoing it. And the actual threat right now (terrorism) doesn't seem deterred by the presence of America's big guns and big bombs.
Terrorism has existed throughout the ages in one form or another, the threat isn't the terrorism itself it's the fuel that compels it, the people behind the most reported incident's don't see it as terrorism, as snaf will tell you, this has gone on for a lot longer than just Iraq and Afghanistan.
Having bigger and more bomb's won't deter them one bit, in fact it would encourage them to carry on, as they know you feel threatened by them, sort of like how a school bully may get their kicks from knowing they intimidate people.
The people who do the suicide attacks won't be deterred, the people who ambush troops won't be deterred, so explain to me how bigger bombs = more security?

---

We can fight the people behind the threats, but a war on terrorism is a war we will never win, it's a fight on idealism and we simply cannot fight people's ideals simply because they are different to our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwood

Western Europe wouldn't hold a candle vs U.S. currently. Their militaries are teeny.

---

:neckbeard:, you have NO idea what your talking about, Europe doesnt boast about their nuclear missiles, unlike the US. However we have alot of firepower.

---

Just so you know, I wasn't factoring in the UK or Canada. UK shouldn't even be considered western Europe, they're closer to Americans than Europeans. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwood

Just so you know, I wasn't factoring in the UK or Canada. UK shouldn't even be considered western Europe, they're closer to Americans than Europeans. :P

---

Scary fact, UK is closer to Iraq than America...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Scary fact, UK is closer to Iraq than America...

---

Closer as in more alike, more similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwood

Closer as in more alike, more similar.

---

>_> You've clearly never been outside the States.

Ok warlord, let me make this crystal clear: the insurgency in Iraq was caused by our dissolving the Iraqi army, and by banning the Ba'ath party. Actually, I'm gonna lay all of that blame squarely on the shoulders of Rumsfeld. It was him that dumped that 30 year old shit head in charge at invasion + 3 (Bremer). If (retired) Lieutenant General Jay Garner had been left in charge, things might have been different. But instead Rumsfeld put up L Paul Bremer, who's first course of action, against the pleas of both Garner & the CIA liaison Charlie Duelfer, was to dissolve the Ba'ath party, and disband the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army, post invasion was literally sitting on their asses, ready to assist the coalition forces with establishing order, much like the Germans after WW2. So, now what happens? You have a bunch of highly trained ex-military with no job, a handful of resentment, and a bunch of political activists who've gone underground. If it had been handled differently, we would have been out of there in two years tops.

Just had to throw that out there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

>_> You've clearly never been outside the States.

---

You also can't understand some slight sarcasm or trying to be funny. Trying to differentiate yourself from the U.S. you don't see the humor.

Dwood, I'd just like to point this out for you while there's still hope: you are trying WAY too hard to be witty, and I've been noticing it since you showed up. Stop while you are ahead. Post less knee-jerk responses and read more. Thanks.

Anyhow, I firmly believe that you can't trust your treaty partners to actually follow through; a treaty is nothing but a piece of paper after all. Hell, even if they wanted to follow through, they might not even be in the economic position to do so (looking at you Russian Federation). Therefore, it follows that disarmament is a waste of money and man power. Building the nukes was largely a waste as well, but what's done is done. Why don't they put those nukes to a more productive use as the foundation for a space defence system against potential asteroid collisions?

Inability to recognize the combined military power of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany represents an American-centric worldview of infantile construction.

Nuclear weapons don't represent a deterrent against terrorist groups or rogue states precisely because they would be useless military tools in retaliation against those threats. And since these are the actual security threats to the United States, Russia, and China, a bloated nuclear arsenal (indeed anything more than a token force) is a simple liability.

Besides, military vengeance has clearly proven to be such an effective tool against terrorism in this last decade!

All we can do to fight Terrorism is send a bunch of Carl Sagans and teachers to teach them the Theory of Evolution as well as the wonder of outer space.

Let me throw this out there: Global defense.

What happens if an aggressive alien species were to be introduced to our global theater of stupidity and petty squabbling? Wouldn't you rather the US & Russian governments band together and rise to the challenge of defending the mighty human race!? Against all odds, staving off annihilation at the hands of a voracious hoard!? Good God sirs, I challenge you to plan ahead; plan for the inevitable!

No but seriously, I think it'd be good to keep a large supply of nuclear weapons on hand. You never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

Let me throw this out there: Global defense.

What happens if an aggressive alien species were to be introduced to our global theater of stupidity and petty squabbling? Wouldn't you rather the US & Russian governments band together and rise to the challenge of defending the mighty human race!? Against all odds, staving off annihilation at the hands of a voracious hoard!? Good God sirs, I challenge you to plan ahead; plan for the inevitable!

No but seriously, I think it'd be good to keep a large supply of nuclear weapons on hand. You never know.

---

If said alien species with interstellar technology were to somehow show up and decide they wanted us gone, what exactly makes you think we would have the technology to defend ourselves?
Seriously, if a alien horde were to show up knocking on our doors, then it would be obvious they would be vastly more technologically advanced than us, it would be like the Mongol throwing rocks and arrows at a challenger tank, just because nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons we know off doesn't mean they are the be all end all and nothing can survive their use.

Like I said, who knows. I'm merely posing a hypothetical situation. Would you rather greet that situation with a well stocked arsenal just in case, or would you rather we spend months refining uranium and plutonium if we found them to be effective? I prefer the former to the latter. Also, I never said anything about their being the end all be all of offensive weaponry, even though they are for us. It's better to be armed, then to be helpless.

A new generation of weapons will arrive soon anyway and the "herp derp give peace a chance" crowd will cry "we should get rid of all these [fill-in-blank]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

If said alien species with interstellar technology were to somehow show up and decide they wanted us gone, what exactly makes you think we would have the technology to defend ourselves?
Seriously, if a alien horde were to show up knocking on our doors, then it would be obvious they would be vastly more technologically advanced than us, it would be like the Mongol throwing rocks and arrows at a challenger tank, just because nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons we know off doesn't mean they are the be all end all and nothing can survive their use.

---

Think about it. If an alien species has interstellar travel, then they also know that energy is precious and that once you leave home, generally what you have is what you got. Why would these intelligent, space-faring aliens waste that precious energy on resource-expensive weapons when firing a bullet or missile as we do can get most jobs done just as easy? There's more to space travel and space combat than simply having fuel to get from point A to point B in a timely manner and having the biggest gun.

Sleepy, what are you on about? Last I checked, we've already developed all the WMDs: we have nukes, we have biological agents, and we have chemicals. Unless someone has an antimatter bomb or can somehow create a singularity to destroy the earth, I don't really see what else we can make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Think about it. If an alien species has interstellar travel, then they also know that energy is precious and that once you leave home, generally what you have is what you got. Why would these intelligent, space-faring aliens waste that precious energy on resource-expensive weapons when firing a bullet or missile as we do can get most jobs done just as easy? There's more to space travel and space combat than simply having fuel to get from point A to point B in a timely manner and having the biggest gun.

---

Think about this then.
If an alien species has travelled that amount of distance to remove us and put that much effort behind what they hope to achieve their not going to just dive in for a little fist fight, they will have no doubt researched us, what our abilities are what our weakness' are.
They are bound to have a much more refined efficiency in their weapons usage because as you said, they would know about their own limitations.
The problem is, the person who engages in a fight will usually win as they will have had time to prepare for what they want to do while the ones defending will have to take time to realise what is happening and what needs to be done to respond, time lost while the attacker can move forward in their plans.

This subject is a really complicated one. On one side, the U.S. and Russia scale down the 1,000+ nukes we don't even need and supposedly promote the same for countries of the same caliber. However, now we have the groups and countries of a different caliber that revolve around obtaining the weapons for destruction and selfish needs. I think our country is doing a poor job at keeping these types at bay or even dealing with them, but hopefully nothing bad will happen before something DOES actually get done. Iran and NK are really what I'm worried about, Iran because they are INSANE and NK because they're obnoxious/unstable. However, Pakistan comes in a close third. They really worry me most of all with all of the fighting that goes on in that country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Think about this then.
If an alien species has travelled that amount of distance to remove us and put that much effort behind what they hope to achieve their not going to just dive in for a little fist fight, they will have no doubt researched us, what our abilities are what our weakness' are.
They are bound to have a much more refined efficiency in their weapons usage because as you said, they would know about their own limitations.
The problem is, the person who engages in a fight will usually win as they will have had time to prepare for what they want to do while the ones defending will have to take time to realise what is happening and what needs to be done to respond, time lost while the attacker can move forward in their plans.

---

That is working on the assumption that they knew we were here and came specifically to remove us. They could stumble upon us by accident (i.e. they know the location of this planet and it happens to be their next stop, so they jump, and then find out that it's inhabited by an arguably intelligent species). Also know that if they enter anywhere in or near the solar system, we would have appreciable warning since I'd be willing to bet that they can't make another FTL jump without first gathering a massive amount of energy again, which is most likely why they would be here in the first place.

But still, what you say is also true.

DarkHalo003: can't go around bashing countries' doors in because we think they have WMDs. Yes, that's what we did with Iraq, and we all know how that's going for us now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

That is working on the assumption that they knew we were here and came specifically to remove us. They could stumble upon us by accident (i.e. they know the location of this planet and it happens to be their next stop, so they jump, and then find out that it's inhabited by an arguably intelligent species). Also know that if they enter anywhere in or near the solar system, we would have appreciable warning since I'd be willing to bet that they can't make another FTL jump without first gathering a massive amount of energy again, which is most likely why they would be here in the first place.

But still, what you say is also true.

---

Haven't you been watching Stargate: Universe? Ships obviously fly through suns to harvest energy into their FTL power reserves , and since Stargate is on the cutting edge of what we know about science and technology there's absolutely no reason they would stop at our insignificant chunk or rock!

Actually, Hawking himself said that's probably one of the reasons aliens might go from system to system. :v

But no, I've actually never seen SG:U. It looked shitty.

Yes I did detect your sarcasm.