Military spending out of control?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Spend 10s of billions to develop a gun that saves millions. Great plan.

In a full attack there is no way, regardless of how cool our system of shooting their missiles down is, that it will make any difference. They can launch 2500 and to destroy every significant city only 100 have to get through. It is a waste.

There is nobody on over there that has a missile that can reach us, that is considered our enemy other than Russia. Installing that system goes against treaties that were setup during the end of the cold war. We used the excuse of "rogue" missile, but there are no missiles that can come from there other than russia's...and they would likely go over the north pole.

Yes 100B. No I dont have a link. A couple washers that cost $900k here, 1 billion on a canceled helicopter, 10s of billions on a missile thing that won't work, hundreds of millions if not billions developing MORE nuclear weapons.... I am confident we could get 100 billion out of there, while still investing in things that actually matter.

That last part isn't even true. We don't develop new nukes, we just maintain and refit old ones.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

That last part isn't even true. We don't develop new nukes, we just maintain and refit old ones.

Uh... yes we do. One example is the nuclear bunker buster that was revisited in 2001 and was funded through 2006. People were riding the Bush administrations ass about it so they stopped funding for it then. We allegedly needed it to possibly strike some caves in Afghanistan.

They are constantly working on "low yield" nuclear weapons as well. Even low yield usage will justify the enemy to use higher yield weapons.

[WickedLou9]

the missle defense shield is really a bad idea. But I don't think it's primarily for us. it's to defend Europe and our interests over there from rogue states like Iran and north korea. even still, it's a bad idea for alot of reasons.

[RMNIXON]

What about the Black Budget Money?

Lots of Toys in the works beyond your imagination!

10+ years ahead of any technology you will find in the public sector.

And some of that will help our private sector when it trickles down.



Not that we don't have military waste, that come with "any" bureaucracy.

But lots of good stuff also!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Uh... yes we do. One example is the nuclear bunker buster that was revisited in 2001 and was funded through 2006. People were riding the Bush administrations ass about it so they stopped funding for it then. We allegedly needed it to possibly strike some caves in Afghanistan.

They are constantly working on "low yield" nuclear weapons as well. Even low yield usage will justify the enemy to use higher yield weapons.

Those are both contraversial projects that nothing has come of and funding has been intermittent for. Hardly billions of dollars.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the missle defense shield is really a bad idea. But I don't think it's primarily for us. it's to defend Europe and our interests over there from rogue states like Iran and north korea. even still, it's a bad idea for alot of reasons.

Don't go into too much detail.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Don't go into too much detail.

This thread really isn't about the missle shield so I will try and keep it brief

1) there is no threat from an ICBM attack. We have missles too and any attack would result in MAD. Everyone knows this. The mere fact that we have thousands of nukes at the ready is it's own shield.

2) It will start another arms race. Thats bad. China and Russia will develop nukes that circumvent our system making it useless.

3) It will throw off the balance of power in the world, destablizing everything.
IF we did suddenly get a working system it would mean we could launch missles against other countries with impunity. This would scare the crap out of the soviets and the chinese and push problem number 2 into overdrive

4) with everyone racing to create new arms, there are more arms to be had globally.
The worst threat we have is from a rogue actor bringing a nuke to american soil and detonating it. With everyone building more nukes, and with the soviets selling almost anything to anyone who can pay... the chances of a terrorist getting a nuke go up. the missle shield won't defend against a suitcase nuke.

5) We signed the NPT and the ABM treaties and we are violating them by building the system. this makes it harder for us to point the finger at other countries like Iran with any sort of credibility. Less international support.

All the money on missle defense would have ten times the effectiveness if it was spent on non-proliferation issues. By building the shield we have created a system that counters a threat which is non existant, spent billions of dollars that could have been better spend elsewhere, and started a new arms race. There is basically no upside.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

1) there is no threat from an ICBM attack. We have missles too and any attack would result in MAD. Everyone knows this. The mere fact that we have thousands of nukes at the ready is it's own shield.

google "iraq scud" (no quotes) and tell me there's no need for a missile shield in europe.

2) It will start another arms race. Thats bad. China and Russia will develop nukes that circumvent our system making it useless.

And we'll develop methods of circumventing their system making it useful.

But you're right, it will be a kind of arms race.

3) It will throw off the balance of power in the world, destablizing everything. IF we did suddenly get a working system it would mean we could launch missles against other countries with impunity. This would scare the crap out of the soviets and the chinese and push problem number 2 into overdrive

"Balance of power" is a myth.

4) with everyone racing to create new arms, there are more arms to be had globally. The worst threat we have is from a rogue actor bringing a nuke to american soil and detonating it. With everyone building more nukes, and with the soviets selling almost anything to anyone who can pay... the chances of a terrorist getting a nuke go up. the missle shield won't defend against a suitcase nuke.

Suitcase nuke is a myth.

5) We signed the NPT and the ABM treaties and we are violating them by building the system. this makes it harder for us to point the finger at other countries like Iran with any sort of credibility. Less international support.

We'll have the support of the people who we protect with it. And treaties can be amended.

All the money on missle defense would have ten times the effectiveness if it was spent on non-proliferation issues. By building the shield we have created a system that counters a threat which is non existant, spent billions of dollars that could have been better spend elsewhere, and started a new arms race. There is basically no upside.

Tell that to the israelis.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 18 | 1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

google "iraq scud" (no quotes) and tell me there's no need for a missile shield in europe.
And we'll develop methods of circumventing their system making it useful.

But you're right, it will be a kind of arms race.

"Balance of power" is a myth.

Suitcase nuke is a myth.

We'll have the support of the people who we protect with it. And treaties can be amended.

Tell that to the israelis.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 18 | 1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel

Your first rebuttal is merely proof that it will cause an arms race.

The missle shield is not designed to defend against small projectiles like Scuds and Katusha rockets. we have the patriot missle system for those and it works. The missle shield that we are developing is specifically for long range ballistic missles. Neither of the things you claim are myths are so. The balance of power is most definately real. The suitcase nuke may not exist now, but with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapon technology caused by another arms race, then it becomes a real posibility.

[WickedLou9]

I read this book a few years back. It's a good read and it discusses alot of these points. I thought the shield was a good idea until I read the book.

Amazon.com: Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Missile Defense: Books: Richard Butler

Amazon.com
The man who led the United Nations' failed effort to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the late 1990s says the world must make a decision "to survive nuclear weapons or be sentenced by them." Richard Butler describes the current situation in understandably stark terms: "These weapons are the singular human invention capable of destroying the earth and all that lives on it." He believes the planet faces no greater challenge than figuring out how to contain them. Global nonproliferation efforts have succeeded over the last several decades, he writes, but not completely: countries such as India, Pakistan, and possibly Iraq now have access to the bomb. President Bush's plans to build a national missile-defense system are especially misguided, in his view, because they would spur a new arms race. By pushing forward, the United States will ensure "the realization of its own nightmare." Butler proposes a series of arms-control measures--Senate confirmation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, the creation of an international Council on Weapons of Mass Destruction--but the main draw of Fatal Choice may be its moral fervor. Policymakers, Butler writes, "have a clear choice: to build a world free from the greatest of all threats to life, or to prepare for the next stage of nuclear bondage and terrorism." --John Miller

From Publishers Weekly
Butler, an experienced and well-respected advocate of nuclear disarmament (he headed the U.N. Special Commission for disarming Iraq), offers a brief but comprehensive survey of nuclear weapons in today's world. He aims to make the available policy choices "understood by plain people in plain language." Butler first explains the regime of treaties and doctrines (such as mutual assured destruction) developed since the inauguration of the nuclear age in 1945. Given their horrific power, nuclear weapons have always been the most feared of the world's weapons of mass destruction. In response, as the author explains, nearly all nations have supported eliminating nuclear weapons, or at least preventing further proliferation. These goals have had only partial success, and currently Iran, Iraq and North Korea are seeking to join India, Pakistan and Israel in the nuclear club. As to the future, Butler warns against passive resignation to nuclear weapons as a permanent fixture of international life. He believes the world can rid itself of these weapons and proposes a program to accomplish this. The most striking feature of Butler's plan is forming a Council on Weapons of Mass Destruction, working parallel to the U.N.'s Security Council. Butler's council would have sufficient conventional military forces to take effective action against nations violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. International action of this kind, not the National Missile Defense advocated by the Bush administration which Butler sees as self-defeating forms the core of this thought-provoking argument against nuclear weapons. (Jan.)Forecast: Readers concerned with world affairs will find this more timely than ever, if they manage to catch word of it from the author's three-city tour and radio satellite tour.

Ironically enough he actually spends some time making a good case for going to war with Iraq. It was written before the invasion.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Your first rebuttal is merely proof that it will cause an arms race.

you: there is no threat from an ICBM attack.
me: google "iraq scud" (no quotes) and tell me there's no need for a missile shield in europe.

No, my first rebuttal said iraq fired between 50 and 80 scuds at israel. They also fired somewhere near 200 at iran.

It was my 2nd rebuttal that talked about an arms race, but not in the sense we had before. The cold war arms race had both countries building bigger, better, and more nukes "just in case." If you want to call this an arms race I guess it fits the technical definition but there'd be a difference. This arms race would be about technology to counter our shield, then our technology to counter their technology. How is that different than them shooting at our vehicles so we armor them and they made better IEDs and we make better armor?

The missle shield is not designed to defend against small projectiles like Scuds and Katusha rockets. we have the patriot missle system for those and it works.

No, it doesn't.

The Patriot "doesn't always get a catastrophic kill as a result of an interception." He explained: "Sometimes it [ the Scud ] breaks up . . . and so you have had cases where the warhead has landed and gone off."

what did the Patriots hit? Fuel tanks. Most Scuds began to break up on re-entry into the atmosphere, about 15 to 12 kilometers in the air;....... Coincidentally, that height is where the Patriot missile approaches the Scud at a combined speed of 6,000 m.p.h. and explodes.

Our military misleadingly called such useless contact "mission kills" on the theory that the explosion might have deflected the warhead from its intended target.

But that explanation does not add up. If a warhead is targeted at a wide area of nine square kilometers, as the inaccurate Scuds are, what does it matter if the warhead is knocked off course a kilometer or two? It does the same terror-damage it was intended to do, but on a different neighborhood.

ESSAY; The Great Scud-Patriot Mystery - New York Times

The missle shield that we are developing is specifically for long range ballistic missles.

Gates wins NATO backing on U.S. missile shield - International Herald Tribune

With short and medium to come quickly after.

And for all the bitching russia is doing, read that article. Putin wanted to connect the US anti-missile system to their radar!

Neither of the things you claim are myths are so.

Suitcase nuke is a myth. You even admit that it's not a reality now. Nuclear winter is still up for debate. There was a study in 2006 that said it wouldn't be anywhere near the doomsday event predicted, and there was a study in 2007 that said it would be bad.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

you: there is no threat from an ICBM attack.

me: google "iraq scud" (no quotes) and tell me there's no need for a missile shield in europe.

No, my first rebuttal said iraq fired between 50 and 80 scuds at israel. They also fired somewhere near 200 at iran.

It was my 2nd rebuttal that talked about an arms race, but not in the sense we had before. The cold war arms race had both countries building bigger, better, and more nukes "just in case." If you want to call this an arms race I guess it fits the technical definition but there'd be a difference. This arms race would be about technology to counter our shield, then our technology to counter their technology. How is that different than them shooting at our vehicles so we armor them and they made better IEDs and we make better armor?

No, it doesn't.

The Patriot "doesn't always get a catastrophic kill as a result of an interception." He explained: "Sometimes it [ the Scud ] breaks up . . . and so you have had cases where the warhead has landed and gone off."

what did the Patriots hit? Fuel tanks. Most Scuds began to break up on re-entry into the atmosphere, about 15 to 12 kilometers in the air;....... Coincidentally, that height is where the Patriot missile approaches the Scud at a combined speed of 6,000 m.p.h. and explodes.

Our military misleadingly called such useless contact "mission kills" on the theory that the explosion might have deflected the warhead from its intended target.

But that explanation does not add up. If a warhead is targeted at a wide area of nine square kilometers, as the inaccurate Scuds are, what does it matter if the warhead is knocked off course a kilometer or two? It does the same terror-damage it was intended to do, but on a different neighborhood.

ESSAY; The Great Scud-Patriot Mystery - New York Times

Gates wins NATO backing on U.S. missile shield - International Herald Tribune

With short and medium to come quickly after.

And for all the bitching russia is doing, read that article. Putin wanted to connect the US anti-missile system to their radar!

Suitcase nuke is a myth. You even admit that it's not a reality now. Nuclear winter is still up for debate. There was a study in 2006 that said it wouldn't be anywhere near the doomsday event predicted, and there was a study in 2007 that said it would be bad.

the missle shield's primary purpose and reason for being has always been about stopping a nuclear missle from hitting us or one of our allies. The other secondary uses you describe can be handled by the patriot missle system or an improvement thereof. So let's just stop talking about scuds because it's not the main purpose of the system. It never has been.

You are ignoring one very important part of the arms race. the developement of more advanced nuclear weapons and the development of a greater quantity of nuclear weapons. To counter our system, the easisest way is to simply shoot more missles at us. You shoot 100 missles, if one gets through our system ( which assumes that our shield is 99% effective, something we are nowhere near ) then the shield is essentially useless. So the fact that our shield exists spurs the creation of more and more and more nuclear missles and more delivery systems. The more nuclear weapons that exist the more risk exists that one will fall into the hands of a terrorist. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology is the worst thing that could happen. And it is exactly what the developement of this shield will result in.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

google "iraq scud" (no quotes) and tell me there's no need for a missile shield in europe.

Let them build their own fucking missile shield. Why are we spending billions of our dollars for them? Fuck them. We are not the world police.

No more bitching about welfare is allowed on this forum. EVER. Defending our interests...

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the missle shield's primary purpose and reason for being has always been about stopping a nuclear missle from hitting us or one of our allies. The other secondary uses you describe can be handled by the patriot missle system or an improvement thereof. So let's just stop talking about scuds because it's not the main purpose of the system. It never has been.

PAC-3 missile
MDA Link

.......to provide increased defense capability against short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

Scud
Scud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....a ... tactical ballistic missile...

Tactical ballistic missile
Tactical ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.....a ballistic missile designed for short-range battlefield use.

But whatever.

You are ignoring one very important part of the arms race. the developement of more advanced nuclear weapons and the development of a greater quantity of nuclear weapons..

You keep talking about nuclear...the real threat from an up-and-coming country is from chemical or biological weapons. They're much easier to produce.

Anyway, your "1 in 100" idea ignores a few things. Putin wanted us to connect to their radar....he wanted in on our defense. So now we're looking at "rogue" nations, iran, north korea, maybe india/pakistan (but not really), and possibly another nation that buys from one of them. You're talking about one of those rogue nations ending up with 100 ICBMs without anyone knowing. If they get one it's effective...now they need 100 and they need to keep all 100 secret...and only 1 is getting through (using your model).

Going off something you said, why would they go to all that trouble acquiring 100 missiles only to hope 1 gets through? And why would we *not* build the system when, if we don't, they'd only need 1 to be a threat?

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Let them build their own fucking missile shield. Why are we spending billions of our dollars for them? Fuck them. We are not the world police.

No more bitching about welfare is allowed on this forum. EVER. Defending our interests...

the shield is for us.....it's just that parts are being installed there.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

the shield is for us.....it's just that parts are being installed there.

So it won't be used if a missile is heading towards a European country but not on a trajectory towards a U.S. base or embassy in that country? Yea, right. It's for them.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Publius

So it won't be used if a missile is heading towards a European country but not on a trajectory towards a U.S. base or embassy in that country? Yea, right. It's for them.

it's for us but because they're allies they're going to benefit from it