Hmm, chasing nuts who want nukes, why bother?

[Adex_Xeda]

I read this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tid=115123

You know we spend a ton of money and time trying to keep nukes out of hands of everyone we don't like. I understand the motivation. One nut with a nuke can mess up a large chunk of the Earth.

But this technology isn't exactly new. The materials are getting easier to produce.

Eventually every dictator is going to a nuclear arsenal. I don't think we can stop that.

Why not take all of this money spent towards stopping nuts getting nukes and redirect it towards some kind of defence system? I mean some 3rd world dictator's single atom bomb rocket isn't worth the effort getting if we're able to knock it out of the sky right after they launch it.

Let those UN folk deal with nukes and whatnot while we sit back under our protective sheild. I mean that's what the UN wants anyway, for the US to quit messing with other nuke seeking countries.

Perhaps if the UN folk get scared enough they'll even chip in on the defence sheild project for all countries that want in.

If it all worked out we might take the teeth out of the nuclear threat in general.

Granted I'm assuming some great things from our technology that might not be there yet.

If you live in a neighborhood where shotguns litter the street, Is it best to run around the street trying to contol all the weapons, or is it better to build a nice bulletproof house?



Better yet, If unilateral US action towards curtailing nukes is a bad idea. How else could you act to curb the problem? Do you think it is a problem? I mean the threat of nuclear war is probably what kept the USSR and USA from going at it in the first place. What if everyone had the ability to wipe out their neighbors in 30 minutes? Would that threat bring in a new, yet scary global peace?

[Krurk]

Sinking billions into a missile defense shield is completely pointless when dealing with small countries like North Korea, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and Luxemburg who would like nothing better to do then wipe the imperialist scum off the face of the earth but lack a sufficient delivery vehicle.

Why invest the millions into developing a better missile when you can just put it in a packing crate marked "Viagra" and ship it into LA, DC, NY or Seattle?

Another argument used against the missile shield (other then the fact that it has yet to work) is a country like China may feel that the only way to counter it is to build more missiles to saturate it.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is the only viable, proven means of containing countries with the ballistic technology to lob a nuke our way (currently only N Korea can hit Hawaii, Alaska and the annoying parts of California).

While the process of creating the bomb is well known, and can be done with ease utilizing current technology, there is still a major hurdle in obtaining and refining the uranium or plutonium. Hopefully though, intelligence agencies will know who to watch for this stuff to avoid another "oops, they do have a program" a~la Libya.

Pre-emptively striking everyone who preaches death to America though will only strenghten their resolve to obtain these weapons to deter American intervention. Case in point, N Korea.

[Arborealus]

Look at the modes of possibl0e nuclear delivery...

The shield would be hella expensive and limit (not prevent in all probability) ICBMs only...

Which leaves us defenseless against:

Ground Dets
Civil Aircraft Deployed Nukes
Standard Bombers
Tactical Missle delivery
Artillery Delivery

ICBM is the single hardest method of delivery to develop and produce...

Why spend the bulk of your defense budget against the lowest probability of delivery?...

Ok so Krurk types faster...

[Adex_Xeda]

Any suggestions for alternatives to our current policy of trying to ostricise countries we don't like if they pursue nukes?

[Winnow]

It's pretty clear that the US will walk all over your country if you have anything to do with terrorism...if you are stupid enough to be an actual country that detonates a nuke by any means inside the US and admit it, you can pretty much kiss your country goodbye...maybe not by nuclear retaliation but from severe conventional high tech weaponry response.

Small countries also are assured of destruction if they use nuclear weapons...it's just not mutual for small countries vs a larger one like the United States. AD instead of MAD.

As for terrorist getting ahold of weapons, I think we're aggressively pursuing terrorist organizations and throwing them into turmoil. You'll still have terrorism but it's not unchecked and it won't start some nutball revolution as hoped by Bin Laden among others.

Larger countries like China still play under the mutual destruction rules.

[Adex_Xeda]

If there are no alternatives to America's current policy, why are people so upset about America's actions?

How else could it be handled?

[Akaran_D]

1: Because we lied about it.
As much as I have respect for Bush for *some of* the things he has done, almost a year after the war, we're creating a council to determine weather we knew Iraq had WMDS or not.

Translation: We lied about it or SOMEONE fucked up somewhere HARD.

2: Because we're fucking it up.
Wasn't afghanistan supposed to be a bastion of democratic ideals about now? That place was handled worse than vietnam and it's showing. Iraq is falling pray to the same problem.


I don't think there would be such a massive problem with it if we either had the balls to admit we were going in to dispose of a mass murderer we should have removed from power a decade ago AND we had a solid exit strategy. We didn't we don't and we're paying for it.

And noone likes war.. even IF it's the right thing to do. Noone wants to be the one to send thier kids over to be killed. This has not been a bloodless occupation.

[Chidoro]

Any suggestions for alternatives to our current policy of trying to ostricise countries we don't like if they pursue nukes?

Don't live in any major city, military base or anywhere down from the jetstream. That should just about cover it

[Voronwë]

Teh MOON!

[Brotha]

Pre-emptively striking everyone who preaches death to America though will only strenghten their resolve to obtain these weapons to deter American intervention. Case in point, N Korea.

I can't believe people still actually argue this. You realize that N. Korea was secretly trying to build nukes and cheating the agreement back when Clinton was still president, right? But yeah, if we had backed down on Iraq I'm sure someone like Kim Jong Ill would have seen how "reasonable" we are and cancelled his nuke program permantly.

Every country out there that has been dying to pick a fight with the US now knows that we're more than willing to kick some major ass even if the pacifistic, apologetic "international community" is dead set against it. Syria is quaking, Iran is allowing strict inspections (which may or may not be enough, we'll decide that), and Qaddafi practically just raised a white flag. Countries see now that instead of looking for an excuse NOT to invade them, we're looking for an excuse TO invade them. Nukes no longer are in the national interests of these rogue states, and they know it- it's as simple as that.

If Bin Laden, Kim Jong Ill, et. al had a choice of Kerry or Bush to be president for the next 4 years, who do you think they'd pick?

[Krimson Klaw]

Please list for me these aggressive countries you mention that have been trying to "pick a fight" with us, and how. Are you counting disagreements as an act of war or something? If I remember correctly, the last country to pick a fight with America directly was Japan.

[Voronwë]

considering the US military is parked on Norht Korea's doorstep, a logical military tactic for them would be to develope a nuclear deterrent.

[Arborealus]

If Bin Laden, Kim Jong Ill, et. al had a choice of Kerry or Bush to be president for the next 4 years, who do you think they'd pick?

I'm pretty sure they'd go for Bush...having stupid one dimensional thinkers makes the geopolitical game much more straightforward...

[Forthe]

Brotha you are a retard.

Having nukes is in a small third world nation's interests. Look at the different approaches the US has had with Korea and Iraq. Look at how it is handling Pakistan after discovering that it actually has proliferated. The only thing the US has proved about kicking anyones ass is if you are a poor third world country with no nukes you are not safe.

The single greatest thing the US can do to protect itself is stop fucking around with other (usually poor) nations so that people don't want to kill you.

[miir]

If Bin Laden, Kim Jong Ill, et. al had a choice of Kerry or Bush to be president for the next 4 years, who do you think they'd pick?

I'm sure they'd prefer Bush, for obvious reasons.

Countries see now that instead of looking for an excuse NOT to invade them, we're looking for an excuse TO invade them. Nukes no longer are in the national interests of these rogue states, and they know it- it's as simple as that.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Nuclear weapons.
George W Bush has never threatened military action on any country with a nuclear program.
The only thing Bush has shown is that he will invade oil rich countries and depose dictators who tried to kill his daddy.

It almost seems like Bush is afraid to take a hard line with any country that is a real threat.... I guess it's easier to bully and invade countries with no means to fight back.

Now that it's obvious Iraq had no weapons of mass distruction and no nuclear program whatsoever, doesn't it seem rather cowardly and foolish that Bush focused US forces on Iraq rather than North Korea which presents a far more immediate threat?

Every country out there that has been dying to pick a fight with the US now knows that we're more than willing to kick some major ass even if the pacifistic, apologetic "international community" is dead set against it.

Just when I thought you couldn't make yourself look any more idiotic.
For fuck sakes man, you sound like a complete redneck with comments like that.

[Deward]

North Korea is all talk. I don't think they have theballs to launch a nuke at the US. The threat is from terrorist organizations. They will have some nut job with a big backpack and swim across the Rio Grande in the middle of the night. If the terrorists had nukes then this would have happened already. If they get one it will happen. Not sure if there is anything we can do to prevent it either. I am happy to be living in a nice small town away from any real targets.

[Brotha]

Let me rephrase the "pick a fight comment." These are countries that have been hostile to the US, supported anti-american activities, and cheered on 9/11. None of them will openly challenge the US, that's not what I was saying. And before someone mentions Saudi Arabia and oil, it looks like Saudi Arabia is actually coming around now, even some neo cons that have been arguing that we invade Saudi Arabia since 9/11 are saying this.

considering the US military is parked on Norht Korea's doorstep, a logical military tactic for them would be to develope a nuclear deterrent.

I think North Korea is starting to re think whether developing nukes will actually be in its best interests. Regardless, our recent strategy or pre-emption is not the reason why they have nukes.

From what it looks like to me, the people that try to blame N. Korea getting nukes on our pre-emptive attack on Iraq are just looking for some kind of negative effect that the invasion has had. I mean, think about it. Can you cite a single bad thing that's happened as a result of us invading Iraq (and I'm not talking about our soldiers being shot at there)? Are you going to cite some mystical rise of fundamentalism right as people are trying to make democratic reforms in Iran and Syria?

Having nukes is in a small third world nation's interests. Look at the different approaches the US has had with Korea and Iraq. Look at how it is handling Pakistan after discovering that it actually has proliferated.

The situation with N. Korea can't even be compared to Iraq. The political situation is different (S. Korea, China vs. the middle east), the military situation is different (even w/o nukes, Seoul would be evaporated), and the history is different.

About Pakistan, what are you trying to say? That if Pakistan right now were selling nukes to Iran and N. Korea we'd say "geez, there's no oil in Paksitan so who cares?" Give me a break. Pakistan and Musharraf have taken some big steps in cleaning up their country and helping us in the war on terror. I have a friend who's from Pakistan, and from what she says sending troops up to the northern tribal regions to go after Al-Qaeda was completely unprecedented and controversial. Pre-9/11 there was some cooperation between Pakistan's government and Al Qaeda, but we're not going to hold it against them now that they're on the right side in the war on terror. Why do it in regards to proliferation?

The only thing the US has proved about kicking anyones ass is if you are a poor third world country with no nukes you are not safe.

We've proven that if you ignore resolution after resolution there will be consquences.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Nuclear weapons.
George W Bush has never threatened military action on any country with a nuclear program.

I should have said "weapons of mass destruction" instead of nukes, but it's the same difference. Saddam was pursuing WMDs and tried to restart his nuke program, as David Kay said. That problem was not going to go away with sanctions (which we had tried for 12 years) or some isolated strikes (as Clinton tried). Sure, if we hadn't done anything it migh have been five or ten years from now or a little longer until Saddam got his hands on a nuke and was any kind of clear threat, and then we'd be stuck in the same situation as we're in now with N. Korea. Saddam never came clean and he never had any desire to fundamentally change his ways- I don't think anyone could argue against that.

Of course we haven't "threatened" military action. We don't need to come out and "threaten" people. Actions speak louder than words and I'm sure Kim Jong Ill heard Iraq loud and clear.

I guess it's easier to bully and invade countries with no means to fight back.

So you're calling us bullies for removing someone who is responsible for the deaths of 2 million people, has invaded two other countries, routinely had dissidents (including children) tortured, and gassed his own people? We're the ones who got rid of the bully. I'm not sure how you could read that any other way.

Just when I thought you couldn't make yourself look any more idiotic.
For fuck sakes man, you sound like a complete redneck with comments like that.

I'm just calling it like I see it.

[Forthe]

The only thing the US has proved about kicking anyones ass is if you are a poor third world country with no nukes you are not safe.

We've proven that if you ignore resolution after resolution there will be consquences.

It has SFA all to do with resolutions, or WMD. The fact that you still buy into this bullshit even now is amazing. We have to nitpick over a "missile program", not actual missiles, to even claim Iraq was in breach of the resolutions. Beyond the "missile program" all we have are people stating what Saddams intentions were, which you happily repeat as some kind of evidence. How easily the stupid are swayed.

All the bullshit about Kuwait and Iran is being stated with no background. And there was plenty of background before either war, Saddam didn't just wake up one day and decide out of the blue to invade either of them.

You ignore the fact that the US was selling weapons to both sides during the Iraq-Iran war.

You state numbers killed by sadam when those numbers include revolts. Should you hold the US governement responsible for the deaths incurred during the civil war? Better yet start a movement bent on the overthrow of the US government and see what kind of reaction you get.

You buy into every single line of propaganda without reservation. You are an idiot.

The fact is if Saddam had a nuclear deterrent he would still be in power.

[Voronwë]

North Korea didnt develope nukes because of our war on Iraq Brotha and nobody is saying they did.

THey started a nuclear weapons program years ago, long before 9/11 and anything that has happened afterwards.

the facts are that the only significant, documented proliferation of WMDs recently is that of our "ally" Pakistan selling technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea...pretty dubious customers.

the recent US v. Iraq war has nothing to do with WMDs. We wanted to change the government in Iraq because it would be a catalyst for political change in the region in other countries: Syria, Iran, Libya, etc. It may be having that positive effect. THat remains to be seen. However, we have yet to deliver the new government, and by most accounts, even with years of planning for this war (predating 9/11/01) the Pentagon still did not have a working strategy for managing the Post-War State.

again, for the nth time: WMD, terrorism, Saddam being a 'rogue dictator': that is all part of the propaganda and public relations campaign.

Iraq had effectively no allies. Iraq had no substantial military. Iraq had a dictator who had ignored UN resolutions for years. So they were a target of opportunity. We wanted to politically engineer the region, and Iraq had put a bullseye on their back. so we started a war to create a political climate that may in the long term benefit us.

but it is not a slam dunk, and there is a long way to go before it really pays dividends.

wolfowitz quote may be innacurate, consulting research gnomes!

[Arborealus]

i mean for fucks sake Paul WOlfowitz has gone on TV and fucking said they were "Shopping for a public justification" for the war. how fucking dumb do you have to be to then accept the governments public justification?

Hrrrm maybe we could sell them the "I Blame Drolgin" rationale? Hell it should be great for the country...a continuing rationale for a one time investment of a couple billion and we can all retire to the islands...

[miir]

So you're calling us bullies for removing someone who is responsible for the deaths of 2 million people, has invaded two other countries, routinely had dissidents (including children) tortured, and gassed his own people?

Can we pin some of those 2 million deaths on the American government who supplied Saddam with the weapons to kill many of those people?

The US supported Saddam financially and with weapons during the war with Iran.

Having dissidents tortured, imprisoned and killed is not at all uncommon in middle eastern Islamic countries. Although I don't condone such action, singling out Saddam and implying that such actions were unique to the Baath party is rather ignorant.

His own people?
Since when was Saddam considered a Kurd?
He use US supplied chemical weapons on the Kurds to end a bloody revolt in northern Iraq.

Of course we haven't "threatened" military action. We don't need to come out and "threaten" people. Actions speak louder than words and I'm sure Kim Jong Ill heard Iraq loud and clear.

Has North Korea abandoned their nuclear weapons program?
Can the US financially afford to invade and occupy multiple countries simultaneously?
Does North Korea have any natural resources (like oil) that would make them a more appealing target to US occupation?

Bush set a precedent with the invasion/occupation of Iraq... although you're to ignorant to realise the message it sent to countries like North Korea.

[Voronwë]

i need to clarify what Wolfowitz actually said regarding "shopping".

i may not be presenting accurate info up there

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

thats from the Vanity Fair interview last year. I need to see if this is what i am thinking of. but i'm busy at the moment trying to GTFO for the weekend

[Brotha]

Yeah Vor you're referring to something that was taken out of context. If he had said what you think he said there would have been a lot more talk about it than there was.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... f0223.html

The relevant part:

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

Kellems: By the way, it's probably the longest uninterrupted phone conversation I've witnessed, so --

Q: This is extraordinary.

Kellems: You had good timing.

Q: I'm really grateful.

Wolfowitz: To wrap it up.

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

Q: So this notion then that the strategic question was really a part of the equation, that you were looking at Saudi Arabia --

Wolfowitz: I was. It's one of the reasons why I took a very different view of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East. I said on the record, I don't understand how people can really believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause of instability in the Middle East.

[Kargyle]

Saying Saddam killed his own people would be equivilent to saying that Israel is killing their own people when they kill the Palistinians. Israel is also known for torturing dissidents (Palistinians) for information on other dissidents, so I guess their government is just as evil as Saddam, maybe we should go after them next.

[Brotha]

Sorry didn't have much time to respond in that last post.

North Korea didnt develope nukes because of our war on Iraq Brotha and nobody is saying they did.

Krurk was insinuating that one of the reasons N. Korea wants nukes is because of our Iraq invasion and Forthe has said that before, if we're talking about people from this board. The fact is N. Korea was obsessed with a nuclear deterrant long before we invaded Iraq. That's all I was trying to say.

I'm not denying Pakistan did the things that I've read about, but they've been extremely helpful recently and done a complete 180 from the path they were headed down. I don't want or expect us to take the firing of the scientist at face value and say "well, I guess that's that," but diplomacy is working in this case.

Changing Iraq to a democracy was one of the reasons, but trying to act like Iraq was never any kind of genuine concern for us until Bush came into office is ignoring history. Was Clinton secretly a neo con? For 12 years was the UN unwittingly serving us with the resolutions?

His own people?
Since when was Saddam considered a Kurd?

And you wonder why I laugh at you so often for arguing semantics...

Saying Saddam killed his own people would be equivilent to saying that Israel is killing their own people when they kill the Palistinians. Israel is also known for torturing dissidents (Palistinians) for information on other dissidents, so I guess their government is just as evil as Saddam, maybe we should go after them next.

If you're trying to compare what Saddam did to what Israel has done please just save it for the next moreon.org ad, thanks.

[kyoukan]

You're absolutely right there is no comparison. At least when Saddam shot someone he didn't bulldoze their family's house and put up a buidling full of heavily armed zionist "settlers" on top of the wreckage.

[Xyun]

Changing Iraq to a democracy was one of the reasons, but trying to act like Iraq was never any kind of genuine concern for us until Bush came into office is ignoring history. Was Clinton secretly a neo con? For 12 years was the UN unwittingly serving us with the resolutions?

Iraq may have been a concern, but they were never ever a threat. Are you arguing that every country is that is a "concern" to us should be invaded, or are you arguing that Iraq was an actual threat?

You can provide no valid argument that proves Iraq was a threat. WMD is out the window. Disobeying resolutions is also a feeble argument. Israel has broken more international law and disobeyed more UN resolutions than Iraq ever did, and without sanctions. OK, now since you have nothing to support your claim, you resort to a hypothetical. "If we did not get saddam, he would have eventually attained WMD". This may be true, but why then not invade every country attempting to attain WMD?

The only valid reason for the invasion is the one Voronwe provided, but unfortunately you are too fucking stupid to realize this. BTW, I think you should join the infantry, front lines baby, and quick too before you have kids.

[Xzion]

Its kind of ironic that Iraq invaded Kuwait on a somewhat similar premises (they refused to cooperate with an international oil agreement), and now we invaded Iraq under a similar circumstance. Of course most fucking retarded uncultured redneck Americans have no idea behind there intentions of invading Kuwait, etc.

[Brotha]

WMD is out the window.

Disobeying resolutions is also a feeble argument.

Only you could make those two into consecutive sentences.

The arguments for removing Saddam are still strong. There were many of them, no single one was reason enough to remove him. When you put all of them together I really don't see how you could come to the conclusion that we're not safer and the world isn't better off for it. I'm tempted to actually make the arguments for the 999999th time, but it's kind of pointless seeing as anything you learn will probably be fried by the end of the night.

[Xyun]

Dammit. He's using the Chewbacca defense.

Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.

[Brotha]

How many times have people referred to the Chewbacca defense on this board? I don't read every thread but I'd have to say I've seen it atleast half a dozen times. I don't know, maybe you're trying to quote your favorite philosopher to show me how educated you are, or something. Kewl dood.

[Winnow]

Reference to the Chewbacca Defense may be used as often as necessary.

[vn_Tanc]

I'm not denying Pakistan did the things that I've read about, but they've been extremely helpful recently and done a complete 180 from the path they were headed down. I don't want or expect us to take the firing of the scientist at face value and say "well, I guess that's that," but diplomacy is working in this case.

You pathetic, brainwashed, apologist, hypocritical idiot.

[kyoukan]

Yes pakistan is heading down the right path of SELLING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO IRAN AND NORTH KOREA. but that is all good because they are an ally!

It's pretty funny. If Saddam Hussein didn't get rid of his weapons of mass destruction like the UN told him to, Bush wouldn't have had the sack to invade Iraq. I wonder how popular his shitty little oil war would have been with the neocons when Hussein started raining chem and bio weapons down all over the place. Makes you wonder who the real barbarians are.

[Sueven]

Friendly advice, Brotha: Your stance on Pakistan here severely damages your credibility in regards to your stance on Iraq.

[Chidoro]

I'm not denying Pakistan did the things that I've read about, but they've been extremely helpful recently and done a complete 180 from the path they were headed down. I don't want or expect us to take the firing of the scientist at face value and say "well, I guess that's that," but diplomacy is working in this case.

wow, just when you think someone can't say something more stupid

[Wulfran]

You know, reading Brotha's quotes, since he joined the Marines, I really hope he goes into the infantry and gets posted into some shithole in Afghanistan or Iraq, with a bunch of people with weapons who hate his ass on principle and are trying to permanently silence his stupidity. The irony would be delicious and it'd be interesting to see how hawkish he is if he survives. Well, at least the Marines should teach him to shut his hole on things he is too stupid to full comprehend, as long as he doesn't wash out first...

[Winnow]

Brotha:

Clueless about religion

Clueless about foreign affairs

Have I missed any threads?

[miir]

I used to enjoy making Brotha look stupid but it's pretty much pointless anymore. He owns himself harder than myself or anyone else could ever do.

[Brotha]

How is my stance on Pakistan hypocritical? Did we not just break up, according to Colin Powell, the worst "nuclear ring" in the world, by diplomacy and intelligence work? I expect us to hold Pakistan accountable and make sure this never happens again, but I don't expect us to invade them.

I'm looking around here where I "pwned" myself and I'm just not seeing it.

[miir]

I'm looking around here where I "pwned" myself and I'm just not seeing it.

[Aabidano]

We haven't had anything to do with Pakistan for ~15 years (mostly) due to their nuclear program. We haven't pursued it for political reasons, no point in stirring the anthill when it's a semi-friendly nation with a decent goverment. The administration is dealing with them now because they didn't have any choice. We used to have a lot of Navy and Marine Corps people in Karachi (cool place) until the mid-80s when we had a falling out.

As scarey as a big nuke is, it's still a fairly localized event compared to what could happen after a well executed attack with a biological agent.

[Xyun]

I'm looking around here where I "pwned" myself and I'm just not seeing it.

that's because you are a blind brainwashed fool.

[vn_Tanc]

I'm looking around here where I "pwned" myself and I'm just not seeing it

So you've managed to forget your braying about the invasion of Iraq as a matter of righteous principle because Saddam "may have had" some Sarin or a missile or even be thinking about starting a nuclear program, yet your "principles" seem curiously absent when someone Dubya kinda likes hands over nuclear technology to dangerous regimes around the world?
Are you getting the picture yet? Or will you have to wait for it to appear on Fox News with captions?

I wish I'd had the presence of mind to cut and paste that article replacing "Pakistan" with "Iraq" to check your response.

[Sirton]

Im glad we took out Saddam...and Ive always had and posted a long list of why we should...and any of them were enough reason for me to believe to do what we did. The first stage has been decisive and the second stage will be tough, but it will take root.

I think every crap ass dictator country needs to be wiped off the face of this Earth so we dont have to deal with there crap anymore and actually live in a more peaceful world without having to worry about 911's, pearl habors, The Huns, Mongols, Vangals, or the Romans ect. And every dictator loon pot country requires different strategies. Iraq was a message sent to many of those countries to shape up or something will be happening to you soon. Libya example. Iraq or I should say Saddam ran out his time to diplomatic means to solve the problem, so good the ass wipe is gone and now weve dropped a major bomb of democracy in that region which will be tough, but pray it works.

With Pakistan we broke up the nuclear ring, and they also have now agreed to allow US forces to offensively move in there country for Bin Laden ect. Thats why there saying hell be captured soon and right before the elections

And for what the topic is about...The Missle Defense system....It has worked BTW...someone said it hadn't. If we can shot a artillary shell down with a lazer well get a anti ballistic system setup. And yes we need it, because North Korea is a psycooooo country and ya CANT READ THE FUTURE. I read in the Korean Times of how they have 100 neclear missles pointed at us now...then I hear how they can hit hawaii alaska california or them even striking Japan would be devestating for the world economy. Unless China smacks them around or diplomatic pressure causes an over throw of the gov't we may someday deal with a missle strike which will make the money spent on the missle defense system pale in comparision in the destruction a strike will cause like 911 caused our economy approx. 1 trillion dollars. What are we suppose to let em black male the world for money to keep there govt's going THATS a GREAT Message!!! And Of coarse shipping the weapons in ect ect ect is also a more possible threat, but not from North Korea, and of coarse we need to do stuff to protect any means of mass destructive weapons being used, which I hope we do.

And hey it would be great if we didnt have to go around and fuck with people....Its what we use to do on the most part....but ya know NOT EVERY COUNTRY in the world is going to abide by that aswell...and ya know theres something called WWI, WWI and a WWIII would make those pale in comparision in death and destruction. If we sit back....all these countries build up, something explodes ya have nuclear strikes and major war like between India and Pakistan..China and Taiwan. South and North Korea. Russia and former republics. Algeria and Greece. Every damn spot in the middle east a few South American countries...All of central Africa...Ohh and America and those damn commy Canadians!!! Wake up we live in a Chaotic world and it is filled with Good and Evil mostly Evil

[vn_Tanc]

it is filled with Good and Evil mostly Evil

Good and evil are such subjective ideas though. Who decides which is which?
You might be happy with the distinction being made by some good ole' boy from texas. I'm less so.

[Krurk]

http://www.house.gov/spratt/news_archiv ... 10608b.htm

While over four years old, it offers a good explanation of missile defense and explains many of the limitations on it as well as the potential rewards.

There is a minor difference in shooting an artillery shell vs shooting a booster or RV, mainly a few thousand miles an hour. Artillery shells fall on a fixed trajectory that can be plotted immediately after launch while a ballistic missile will likely go sub-orbital which does not affect tracking but does affect any system designed to engange it. The laser used to shoot that artillery shell would have no hope of penetrating more then a few miles of atmosphere, and space based lasers would break so many acecpted treaties before you even deal with the actual physics of powering one in orbit.

North Korea has apparently become the world’s ninth nuclear power. Last November, the CIA estimated that Pyongyang has one, perhaps two, nuclear weapons.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nuken ... enote.html

I read in the Korean Times of how they have 100 neclear missles pointed at us now..

I don't think so.

If Bush was serious about promoting democracy and ensuring personal freedoms while halting proliferation, then why are we sitting in Iraq instead of Pakistan? Afterall, our support for oppressive regimes that overthrow popularily elected governments is partly responsible for our problems with the region.

Ofcourse, Pakistan realizes that we need them for intelligence, and wants to curry US support in their dispute with India.

As far as China goes, they stand to lose more by going nuclear then anyone they could hit. While they maintain a large arsenal, it's not enough to saturate us, Russia, India, France, Britain and Israel who would be taking numbers to glass China.

Plus, China is leaning on us to dial down Taiwan's rhetoric in return for assisting with N Korea. However, I wouldn't worry about China hitting Taiwan up anytime soon, they may have a large army but they don't have enough row boats to invade. I would expect China to continue modernizing its economy and military while slowing accepting reforms so that in 20 years they may be able to get Taiwan to rejoin peacefully. Should that happen, they would likely surpass the US as the leading economy. Ofcourse, we could always annex Canada.

As for what to do, Israel had the right idea with Iraq in the 80's. Find the threat, then bomb it and snub your nose at the country.

[Sirton]

Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal ya cant just go in there like Iraq...once a country is nuclear the rules change and diplomatic means are going to be strung out much more.

On the missle defense system we live in a chaotic world and we cant rely or give hope in other countries or dictators. We gotta protect ourself or atleast spend the money to build a system to protect us, so we can deal with rogue nations and not be black mailed by them in the future when the technology spreads around the globe. Anyways about the validity of it working or the possibility. 2 succeful missions this last january alone.

We will realize that goal this year, and for the first time we will have a capability to defeat a ballistic missile attack threatening the United States. It also will be a major step toward attaining the greater goal of defending the United States, and our allies, friends, and deployed forces from ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink.html

[kyoukan]

what about saddam's enormous stockpiles of nukes and chem/bio bombs capable of wiping out the united states and britain in 45 minutes?!?!?!?!?!

you fucking idiots keep contradicting yourselves

[Wonko Wenusberg]

Building hi-tech sam sites to defend your country from nukes is like hiding stuff under the carpet. In the end someone will trip over the carpet and a worst case scenario could be one supreme power with supreme defense is surrounded by "evil" nuclear states.

And good and evil should not be used in real matters. It fits in fairytales, or the media that heavily simplifies world conflicts.

Making a long list of why Saddam should have been put off his throne is useless. We could use that on any country's current leader/s, and come out with pretty good arguments.
Though he was one of the last dictators in the modern world, and used his supreme power in wrong ways, so I agree that it was a good thing to do, but to maintain power in Iraq with its many minorities was and is a hard thing to do.


bork bork bork pardons the typos bork