At least the Demopublicans are interested in national defense...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299189,00.html

If it stops missiles 5% of the time, that is better than 0%. If it stops missiles 10% of the time, that is better than 5%.

Thats what I mean by "how good". NMD does not need to be 100% effective in order to provide protection.


Since it will primarily function as a deterrant anyway, we will probably never have to find out. But low protection against missile attack is better than no protection.


.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

But better then nothing.
The missiles intercepted back then did not hit their intended targets.
Success.








You and some other seems to want perfecton in lieu of capability.

Think of it in terms of a bulletproof vest..you get shot.. break say 5 ribs have the deepest bruise in your life..maybe even some internal injuries.
BUT YOUR NOT DEAD.

Only if there's no better use for the money. For me it depends on what it costs for a low protection against missile attack and what else we could be spending the money on. Once you run the numbers it very, very likely won't be worth anywhere near what it costs. For example, it's better for me to have some level of protection against metorite landings. But if it will cost me $250,000 for 20% protection, then it's best to take my chances. Especially if my actions contribute to the likelihood of meteroite landings in the first place.

No doubt true. But if it costs $500 billion dollars to stop 5% of missiles that are likely never coming anyway, then we're franjky stupid for building it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

There is no issue more important than Defense. And the possibility of a missile attack is high enough to warrent construction of a defense against it.

If we have to work the kinks out of the system, I'd rather do it now than 15 years from now after Iran has an nuclear ICBM capable of hitting the US.


If it stops a single nuclear armed missile it will pay for itself many times over.

It is a form of insurance. The consequences of having no defense when we need this are high enough that it justifies the cost IMO.


heh heh, "landings"...did you mean "impacts"?

The chances that we will be hit by a missile are probably higher (statistically) than being hit by a meteor.


I am unwilling to take the same risk you are.


Stopping a single missile may spare the lives of a million people or more. They might disagree with your cost analysis.

And, as I said, it serves a function as a deterrant as well. An enemy is less likely to attack us if they know that their missile may not hit. The "M" part of "MAD" would no longer apply.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

So, S-S, out of curiosity, give me a number.

How much would a 1% shield be worth?

How much would a 5% shield be worth?

What are you willing to pay? I would think that you would agree that, say, $1 trillion for a 1% shield is too much. But where do you draw the line?

Missile defense is a tricky area, because the risk of attack is hard to measure and can change rapidly, and the feasibility of the technology is largely unknown. Further, money spent today may build the foundation for a workable system 20 years down the road.

We all agree that a missile shield would be nice, but whether you support the current effort depends on how you view the risk of attack and the likelihood of building a working system.

Me, I support pouring a healthy sum into the basic research because even if it never leads to a working system it will move us forward in such advanced technologies as lasers, particle beams, interceptor technology, etc. -- stuff that will have applications beyond SDI.

But we should only take the step of deploying a full system when we have something that is likely to work, at a reasonable cost, and not easily defeatable by countermeasures. Because for $500 billion we could buy one hell of a lot of conventional hardware and satellites that would do more to deter (or actively prevent) a missile attack than a %1 shield.

__________________
Man up.

Would it stay at 1% forever or could we improve on it? That would be a factor.


As much or more than we are paying now. Thats how much.



Not if the technology can be improved upon in the future. And in any event, your hypothetical is irrelevant since the current shield is already more effective than that.


I'll know it when I see it.


The risk of attack rises exponentially the lower our defense against it. Just like with conventional military; the weaker your military, the higher the risk you will be attacked.


China and Russia still seem to feel threatened by our current system...apparently they think their ability to develop countermeasures to defeat it is insufficient.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Pretty much. Although neo-cons clearly don't see it, there is (in the real world) a limited supply of funds. Asia and your grandkids can only fund so much of your government. Hence, public money should go where it does the most good. There are four factors here: 1. How likely is a missile attack? 2. How much damage would it actually do? 3. What are the odds that a shield will stop the missile anyway? 4. What will the shield cost? The only two we know the answer to are 1 and 4. 1. Highly remote at best, 4. Super, super expensive. Likely trillions all in. Regardless, all things considered it's highly likely (99.9% in my opinion) that the money is better spent elsewhere and that the money would save far more lives spent on something else. If saving lives is your main concern you need to be more selective when spending your grandkid's money.

Certainly. And one of the best defenses costs $0. Stop making enemies. The situation with Iran (which will very likely never attack us here anyway) was caused mostly by the U.S. in the first place.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Ah the old neo-con carte-blanche... Love it... Love it.


Blatant logical fallacy. First of all, there is nothing exponential about this risk scale by your metric. A country's military strength is part of the equation, but by no means all of it. The most important aspect of this equation is the measure of the resources a country possesses within its borders. That is what truly affects its probability of being attacked. Countries with high resources and weak defence will have the highest likelyhood of being attacked. Another metric might be threat posed, but that is for another post. You have to establish and recognize motive or gain. A few examples:

Israel-- Strong Military, highly contested cultural and historical resources. Constantly attacked.
Mexico-- Comparatively weak Military, uncontested resources. Never attacked.
Kuwait-- Comparatively weak military, highly valuable resources. Recently attacked.

Historically, nations that are stronger are less likely to be attacked. The "exponential" qualifier is my opinion.


Which would seem to support my conclusion. You didnt counter my point, you just qualified it further.


How do those examples counter anything I've said? You've just made my point for me.

Do you think Israel would be LESS likely to be attacked if it had a weaker military?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?