quote:
Here is the definition of defensive again:
Intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack; "defensive weapons"; "a defensive stance".
A missile shield is defensive, not offensive
Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make your argument valid. As you are a detractor of creationists who use this tactic, you should frankly know better.
Explain to me the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Then perhaps we'll get somewhere.
quote:
You didn't answer the question.
You have a penchant for going off on tangents, did you know that?
How is that off tangent? The concept of MAD is the key reason that nuclear weapons are unusable. The Missile Shield turns them into usable weapons by disrupting if not entirely destroying MAD.
Thanks again for showing you just don't get it.
And I'll get highlighting everything you choose to ignore like I did last them and from now on.
quote:
As a realist, I know you were hesitant to "judge the intentions" of China and Russia (aka If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off...); however, since you did judge their intentions (wants/fears/etc.), I responded:
Not at all. A realist works entirely off capabilities and the Missile shield, abet with a few upgrades and increases could easily shut down China, and Russia depending if they actually agree to the reduction plans as they have in the past. Intentions are irrelevant here. The capability of the shield to work against them is obvious to those with the knowledge.
Thanks again for showing you just don't get it
quote:
Two things:
The missile shield is defensive.
Because it is defensive (offers protection against attack), Russia and China got PO'ed.
THERE YOU GO. The missile shield offers protection from an attack on Russia and China, therefore allowing the US to launch an attack that previously would have been deterred under MAD. Let's do this even dumber.
I would punch you except you would punch me back. Now I have a personal shield that protects me from being punched
leaving me now to attack you without fear of retaliation. How is this shield not an offensive weapon when it clearly allows me to attack where I previously, without it would not have attacked? Oh wait, you don't address things that require a understanding of the subject.
quote:
Again. You didn't answer the question.
Here is your original quote:
Come again?
You cited your article as proof that pre-delegation does not exist
You stated this:
quote:
Page not found – Brookings
Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.
Nothing at all in your article even discussed pre-delegation. Seriously. Did you not expect me to read that?
quote:
You need to address how "the liberal Brooking Institute" somehow is anti-nuke and therefore anti-pre-delegation, as that was your original contention.
I never said it wasn't anti-nuke and your own link proves it anyways. And I never said it was anti-pre-delegation, merely that its arguments, notice the word: arguments, do not make sense.
I realize you're purely looking for a citation fight, that's pointless and you once again fail to provide any reasoned arguments why you are right and I'm wrong. I give reasoned arguments why your statements, not arguments are false and why mine are correct. Why are you incapable, or unwilling to do the same? You have no problem giving reasoned arguments in other subjects, why here? Or is that you don't understand you know it?
quote:
You get to make a bare assertions. Yet I must provide support for my positions? Oh, I don't think so!
Your support is laughable, either completely missing the subject or posting irrelevant subjects.
If I was wrong, you would have been able to prove it instead of just calling me names. You say this or that but by the next post you completely drop your points against me. That shows to me that you HAVE looked it up and figured out I'm right but you won't admit it.
quote:
As I stated previously, our satellite system is global. A local outage will not interfere with the missile shield's radar. The radar used to track incoming missiles is a series of low-earth orbit and high earth orbit STSS (space tracking and surveillance satellites) for the detection and tracking of ballistic missiles.
Where local means several million square miles of space and a significant portion of the sky and every satellite in it. I realize you have no understanding of this subject at all. Your own link stated that satellites will be blinded by such an action in line of sight. Radar doesn't work out of line of sight. Explain to me how a satellite who's position is one of the other side of the planet is going to be of any use.
Oh wait, you don't have arguments, just insults and irrelevant statements.
quote:
They are knocked out (blinded) LOCALLY.
Where locally means everything for millions of miles in line of sight. Let me try to explain this to you in very simple terms so you can get it. Imagine a huge pool with thousands of cameras in it. Someone releases a huge amount of stuff into a section of it, reducing visibility to zero in it. Does it matter that we have cameras far away from that section? Can we see and tell what's in it with those cameras? It doesn't matter if we have one camera or a million that are outside of the blinded zone. We can't see anything IN the zone due to the visibility reducers. The satellites aren't blinded themselves internally, but they are blinded in detecting whatever is in the blast zone.
That is exactly what happens with a space based explosion
precisely why we stopped using nuclear interceptors as they blind us to subsequent salvos.
quote:
ICBMs are:
1. Slow moving, fragile targets.
2. Easy to spot (bright exhaust plumes).
3. A unitary target.
The ABL can be deployed against ICBMs for boost phase intercept.
Come again? A missile moving
18,000 mph is SLOW?
You are arguing for the sake of arguing!
The speed of sound is 770 mph. The Patriot missile goes three times that. Nowhere ever CLOSE to an ICBM. Easy to spot yes, but so are alot of other things. That doesn't mean they are equal targets.
I already dictated why ABLs don't work against ICMBs. And they were NEVER designed to target them.
Explain to me how we're suppose to get an ABL close to the target during boost phase and NOT get shot down?
You're arguing because you like arguing. Not because you think I'm wrong.
quote:
Your opinion is worthless. You have no credibility whatsoever. That's a fact, not a "name".
Based on your beliefs. Too bad you are incapable of addressing any arguments I've given, have completely failed to provide a single reasoned argument why I'm wrong and resorted to name calling in place of a reasoned argument. If I was what you said
you'd be able to refute something I've said. Instead you ignore large parts of my post, call me names, refuse to give a reasoned argument and pretend you're right despite utterly failing to prove anything.
quote:
You are 25. That's a fact.
Prove it.
Furthermore, that's the fallacy of the ancients.
Good job using creationist tactics.
quote:
I compared your methods to those of creos. I did not say: "You creo you!".
Just like Bush never said there was an imminent threat? And since you ignored the other things you did to me, I'm going to take that
you admit you did them, including calling my opinion worthless, me being delusional and living in fantasy land.
Would you like to be reported to the Mods?
quote:
And yet you steadfastly refuse to provide evidence. You are a hypocrite. And, yes, that's me calling you a name.
Hey, you're free to look up anything I've said, and I'm pretty sure you already did.
If I was wrong, why can't you prove it?
And here's what you deliberately ignored.
Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive. A missile shield makes formerly unusable nuclear weapons usable. Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Here's the point about my comment on your analysis (it doesn't exist). If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation on the homeland, the US is largely free to fire weapons as it pleases. Shields are offensive weapons as they shield the attack from attacks that normally would have deterred them. It's actually good thing that the shield is an fraud. The last time we tried to do this it put us several hundred billion in the hole and we got virtually nothing out of it.
Like yourself. At least I understand this concept. You can't address my points.
Before you lie and distort what I've said, this isn't about deliberate use, it's about accidental use. In some degree, the US and Russia already acknowledge this will a retargeting of weapons into empty space. However, the threat is still there as all one has to do is retarget with the last known coordinates.
Could you define "completely disarm?"
Because under the shape charged argument, the only piece missing is the charge itself. The weapon is still in reality.
And no one ever considered the Nunn-Lugar CTR even a remote possibility in the past. Furthermore, everything in history was not even considered an remote possibility at some time. I'll repeat my last comment to you in a prior post as you seem to be unable to get out of it.
I'm asking you to argue why it is a bad idea. What you seem intent on doing it just arguing if someone else had thought of it before. That's worthless. Completely worthless.
And if you thought that was really true, you'd be able to disprove me. I'm still waiting.
I should report you for that. Why would it be true? All you can do is insult me. Not present any reason why that is wrong.
I'm asking you to present an reasoned argument why my idea is bad. You apparently are unwilling to do this. Why?
The US is fully capable of making new weapons quickly. Why wouldn't MAD still exist? If you nuke us, expect to get nuked back. How is that not MAD?
Yet you can't even refute anything. I have worthless opinions, but all you can do is throw ad homenins at me. I see how it is. Interceptors work to attack the missile in flight. ICBMs are actually in space. Those weapons you talked about, are not capable of space flight. By the time the weapon is leaving space, it is virtually too late to shoot it down. I already mentioned how the tracking speeds are incapable of hitting that as many of them have problems with much slower targets. Ignoring this does not make it go away, even though you'd love that to be true.
So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming? Kind of cocky isn't that? Mind if the target is your city? Not a single test has even resembled what an enemy will do. What kind of test measures the viability of a system when everyone knows when the missile is coming, where it will be and everything about it?
You don't understand this subject!
This is funny seeing just how many points you pretend do not exist.
It's a common fact that ICBMs typically have around 6~12 MRVs. Go look it up. If I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it instead of just calling me names. Furthermore, Russia's weapons were at time after the SALT treaties around 10,000 weapons. 1/10 of that isn't far from what I gave.
Your complete and absolute failure to address an single point I have made is far more telling then you relying on childish comments. Say all the immature things you want, it doesn't change the fact that you can't refute anything I've said and that you are exponentially ignoring points. I clearly have the high ground here.
Against an entirely different target. You would not use a .223 round against an Hind, likewise you wouldn't use a METHEL against an ICBM. Different weapons call for different defenses. What we do not have is an defense against the countermeasures in an ICBM.
Not really. EMP isn't that important as you have stated military equipment is shielded from direct exposure. What we do not have an solution to is the radiation and static from an space based explosion, your own source even states that. Blinded radar = blinded interceptors. That was my entire point which you seemed to have either pretend not to exist or did not understand.
You've called my opinion worthless many times, called me a creationist and attacked me on my age. Not to mention stated I spend time in fantasy lands and are delusional. I should report you for all of those as they are clearly breaking the rules, but I don't run to mommy to solve my problems like you did.
if you bothered to read my posts on that, you'd notice that when I ask for evidence, it's in a reasoned argument. It's not that there is no evidence for different era organisms in the same layer, it's why there is no evidence for it.
I have yet to see you make a SINGLE REASONED ARGUMENT IN THE PAST FOUR POSTS
I'm still waiting for you to argue how Hair Trigger is safer then Not Hair trigger.
You seem perfectly content to pretend NO one ever made that point.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
