![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Terrorists don't have missiles. Terrorists have VANS.
A white-panel-truck defense shield, THAT would be worth our
money." -- John Rogers,
2004-12-15 (thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cos for pointing out
the essay it's in.)
Daphne Eftychia Arthur, guitarist+. QotD.
"Terrorists don't have missiles. Terrorists have VANS.
A white-panel-truck defense shield, THAT would be worth our
money." -- John Rogers,
2004-12-15 (thanks to cos for pointing out
the essay it's in.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
BTW, the missile defense under discussion was a defense against missiles, not trucks.
(no subject)
The sad thing is Democrats would rather do nothing then even risk failure. Do you notice how they wondered around in that article. Since when was Missile defense to be used against terrorist. I challenge you to show me that in any proposal for missile defense. The fact is their are nations out their that are seeking or may have missile that are delivered in the form of intercontinental missles... see N. Korea, Iran, China, Russia, etc.
Picture this... they have guns you have guns... then someone says lets make some body armor. Sure the first suit will be flawed. But in the in then they have guns and you are safe. But what you democrats say is they have guns and we should throw our guns away and bare our chests and hope our good will will touch their hearts..
Now who is being the realist?
(no subject)
Note also that he addressed the former Soviet Union and China in the essay.
As for your "you Democrats" comment: who? I've voted for Democrats in the past, yes, but I've also voted for Greens, Republicans, Libertarians, and (if memory serves) an independent. What am I?
Personally, I think anti-missile missiles sound pretty cool (I chose the quote because it was both pithy and snarky, more than any other reason), but I have to agree that after that much money and time I'd expect to see either better results or an admission that the problem turned out to be harder than it looked and that either the specific or general approach to it was wrong. (Or that it was "the wrong problem").
So once again, you've railed against arguments and concepts that are not present in the writing you're responding to. (FWIW, the closest you got to a cogent counterargument was the it-takes-refinement-after-the-first-try body-armour analogy, except that you trashed that by turning into a "Lib'ruls Are Gonna Leave Us Defenseless!" screech.)
(no subject)
But again you may feel I am off topic and maybe I am.
(no subject)
Maybe use the money to build schools for kids in countries where the only good ones accessible to everyone right now only teach the Khoran and that America is the Great Satan. That has a better chance of stopping a nuclear blast here, IMHO.
Anne Coulter said opposition to the Missile Shield was "Treasonous" because there was no reason to oppose it. Bill Maher said he opposed it and had good reasons. She asked what they were:
"It's expensive. It doesn't work. AND THE BAD GUYS USE BOX CUTTERS!"
(no subject)
It is expensive... so what any military system or experiment is expensive, successful or not.
It doesn't work.... It is in developement which means that at times it will not work.
AND THE BAD GUYS USE BOX CUTTERS... Like those are the ONLY bad guys out their. As I said before intercontinetal missiles are still a threat.
"Maybe use the money to build schools for kids in countries where the only good ones accessible to everyone right now only teach the Khoran and that America is the Great Satan."
This assumes many things... one you can tell other countries what schools they will have. (you can't). Two that we have to power build anything in any country we want. (we don't). Three that educateing Muslims in western way would stop countries like N. Korea, China, and Russia from targeting the USA with Missiles. (which it will not).
Myoptic is the view that the only way a nuclear missile will threaten the USA is through the Islamic Terrorist. Their are still other threats out their and we don't have the power to change every government or every school system to prevent these threats. So it is best that we experiment, develop, research many forms of defense including missile defense, anti terrorism systems, and surveilance systems.
(no subject)
Myoptic [sic] is the view that spending money on a missile defense shield is cost effective.
Yes ICBM's from N. Korea are a threat. But if there are better ways of combating the threat, youre wasting the money. Heck, What N. Korea wants in terms of blackmail money to stop building them is a FRACTION of what we're spending on missle defense.
How much is it worth spending on missile defense? Give me the money and I bet you I can improve our odds over a system that so far is batting a flat zero. Not that I'd pay off North Korea, but of all the options, so far missile defense is the worst.
And again, "myoptic" [sic] is the view that I ONLY THINK ISLAMIC TERRORISTS ARE THE ONLY WAY WE WILL GET HIT with a nuke. I never stated it. And you keep reading things into what other people post. It's damned annoying and I'd really wish you'd stop doing it...
/beleagered
(no subject)
But it was kinda unavoidable. I mean there is no real link between Missile Defense and Terrorism. So discussing them in the same statement is somewhat far reaching.
The reason missile defense has always been a good idea is that it is a general fix and not a specific fix. N. Korea my change it ways but the danger of intercontental missiles isn't going way if they do. In the future their is every reason to beleave that other nations will come along with the same technology. In truth it isn't N. Korea that is the problem but the technology that is, that is to say the technology of intercontental missiles. (nuclear or not). When the system get's the bugs out it can be a defense to technology. Paying the blackmail is only a defense to N. Korea. Even diplomatic stuff is only a defense to the nation by nation problems. Not all conflicts can be resolve with pure diplomacy.
As for the success or failure of the system. They just had another successful test of it at sea. The problems seems to be with the land based units and they have not figured out why that is so. It reminds the of missile interception systems of the first gulf war in which the problem what the program that was use to track the missiles. So like I side before the system isn't perfect but it will be better then nothing at all.
(no subject)
For example, I state that I find it annoying when you read things not stated into my posts, and you respond by saying it's unavoidable because of the very subject matter.
And in so doing so, you demonstrate the same behaior and prove the point all in the same paragraph...