US-Russia Missile Talks Come To Naught

I wish somebody would develop that nanotech that would attack and destroy all nuclear weapons in the world.

But then someone else would just develop a nanotech that destroys all of something else in the world, and so on, and so on

Testing within the last month has been successful...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/us/29missile.html

1. You're an idiot. ABMs against modern ICBMs with multiple, manuverable warheads are completely ineffective. Russia is crying over nothing and you, knowing nothing, took them at face value.

2. That's the whole point! It's too expensive to field against the Russians full scale, and I'd hope to God it was never used.

3. The United States already removed itself from the treaty, and there was only one other signatory: Russia.

4. So are the Olympics, does it matter?

5. I've already demonstrated that they can be used properly against the right foe (Korea, Iran, Syria), therefore it's not "crappy" and if you don't think any of those nations are a threat, then I won't have to remove you from this discussion: you'll have done it yourself.

Fuck 'em. All of 'em. If Europe wants missile defense, let them build it.

It does kind of matter when you're spending such enormous sums of money, yes.

An argument against socialism from a surprising source

And the market report for today puts the exchange rate at 1 pile of fresh dog shit to 35.8K henryhills.

Bad example, since that system's effectiveness was somewhat... overstated... at the time:

Success rate is also lower if you score a hit but fail to kill the warhead or force it off-target to an unimportant location. The success rate was 30% higher for Patriot batteries stationed in Saudi Arabia than in Israel, because Scuds were forced off-course into the desert whilst off-course Scuds targeting Israel were largely forced down into populated areas.

And, of course, Patriot points out the difficulties in engaging incoming missiles all too tragically:

Regardless, the question is should NOT be "is this possible?" but "is this worth the time and effort, as well as pissing off other nations, considering that the most likely delivery of a nuclear weapon by a rogue state would NOT involve an ICBM or short-range sub-launched missile?".

General Daniel O. Graham
General Abramson
Dr. Robert Jastrow

To name just three.

Counter measures, even simple ones aboard ICBMs take up space and weight that either reduce the range of missiles or the payload (nuclear warheads).

So just by forcing a nation to add counter measures, you reduce their nuclear threat.

Are you honestly telling me that you can put a price on the head of human beings?

You haven't yet shown that this is the only strategy to defend those people, let alone whether it's the most cost-effective.

Right now, no-one has managed to show that it is a strategy to defend those people.

Show who?

Do you make sure everyone in town likes the make and model you've chosen before you buy a car? Or is it nobody's business but yours?


What is the sentiment of the Polish and Czech public on this matter?

No, I'm saying that since I think that there are better ways to spend the money to help human beings, it does matter if it's wasted on this.

Are you a resident of the Czech Republic or Poland?

Anyone. At all.

If I spend their money to buy a car that is so unsafe it is likely to kill many of them, it is certainly their business.

Are you?

Have you read my opinion on the matter? I've stated it twice now

I don't need to be to have or express an opinion on matters concerning them.