Star Wars Realized: Questions for the Left

[kickabuck]

The Washington Times has reported that the U.S. has made its ground-based missile defense system operational. To those on the left who have actively opposed the development of missile defense since Reagan's '83 speech:1) Why have you made it possible for thousands of American lives to be determined by the whims of a nutjob like Kim Jong-Il by impeding the progress of these programs? 2)Why have you likewise put at risk the lives of thousands of Koreans by impeding the progress of these programs?

[iron81]

1. The missile shield makes the world more dangerous. If you have one nuclear weapon, and your opponent has 12 ABM's, guess how many nuclear weapons you are going to build. And of your now 13 nuclear weapons, I would be surprised if the ABM's we have hit 3. So for the residents of the 10 cities that just got nuked, the "liberals" didn't really hurt them, did they?
2. The missile defense shield doesn't protect Korea.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The missile shield makes the world more dangerous. If you have one nuclear weapon, and your opponent has 12 ABM's, guess how many nuclear weapons you are going to build. And of your now 13 nuclear weapons, I would be surprised if the ABM's we have hit 3.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong, and there is empirical evidence of that. The threat of Star Wars and your proposed counter was enough impetus to dismantle the USSR. You have no clue as to the effectiveness of the ABM's, which could be your 25% or could be 100%. It is ultimately an economic sinkhole to try and compete against advancing technology by increasing sheer numbers.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The missile defense shield doesn't protect Korea.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the economic disincentives to North Korea to even embark on a nuclear missile program would have been far greater with a more well developed ABM program, which indirectly would have protected South Korea.

[BluffTHIS!]

iron,

So if it is true that ABM systems in fact make us less safe (and I don't particularly believe that is true especially regarding small nuclear powers without the resources to field enough nukes to overcome the system), then that means the only way to make us safe from such attack by NK is a first strike, is that right? Note I am not viewing their assured destruction as true prevention because rogue nations led by nutjobs as they are don't think logically.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The missile shield makes the world more dangerous. If you have one nuclear weapon, and your opponent has 12 ABM's, guess how many nuclear weapons you are going to build. And of your now 13 nuclear weapons, I would be surprised if the ABM's we have hit 3. So for the residents of the 10 cities that just got nuked, the "liberals" didn't really hurt them, did they?
2. The missile defense shield doesn't protect Korea.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If I have a robust defense most adversaries and nutjobs will not have the resources to overcome it. Just ask the Soviets their view of Star Wars and the problems it presented them.

2. No, but the ensuing war that will come will kill plenty in Korea. If we had a robust missile shield Kim Jong-Il's whims and mental health would not be an issue. His missiles couldn't get here, thus saving tens of thousands of lives.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
only way to make us safe from such attack by NK is a first strike, is that right? Note I am not viewing their assured destruction as true prevention because rogue nations led by nutjobs as they are don't think logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the only way. The other way is exactly what we have been doing the last 50 years: a healthy mix of deterrence and ass kissing. I really don't think heads of state qualify as nut jobs. Kim Jong Il has a good life in North Korea: millions of worshipers, nice cars, all the ass he can handle. He probably prefers it to a glass parking lot.

[ QUOTE ]
The threat of Star Wars and your proposed counter was enough impetus to dismantle the USSR.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a right wing myth. Soviet military expenditures remained constant during the Reagan years. Gorbachev killed the Soviet Union with Glasnost (sp?)

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
only way to make us safe from such attack by NK is a first strike, is that right? Note I am not viewing their assured destruction as true prevention because rogue nations led by nutjobs as they are don't think logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the only way. The other way is exactly what we have been doing the last 50 years: a healthy mix of deterrence and ass kissing. I really don't think heads of state qualify as nut jobs. Kim Jong Il has a good life in North Korea: millions of worshipers, nice cars, all the ass he can handle. He probably prefers it to a glass parking lot.

[ QUOTE ]
The threat of Star Wars and your proposed counter was enough impetus to dismantle the USSR.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a right wing myth. Soviet military expenditures remained constant during the Reagan years. Gorbachev killed the Soviet Union with Glasnost (sp?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Reagan's initiative was far from the sole reason for the Soviet demise. However the Soviets had a lot of faith, moreso than many liberals in the States, in the ability of Americans to succeed in their technological endeavors. They had seen it before and knew that they would have great difficulty countering this initiative. It played a role and has been admitted as such by former Soviets.

[iron81]

Which Soviets? The common citizens? Their knowledge of American technology came from Soviet propaganda. And do you think that the Soviet leaders would ever say "we can't beat em, so we'll just quit"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
The Washington Times ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe the Washington [censored] Times?

[lehighguy]

To date, the Anti-Balistic Missle system has killed millions upon millions of people to provide marginal protection against a vague threat.