Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Russia tests warhead that pierces US missile shield

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Russia tests warhead that pierces US missile shield
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

I think the USA is well aware that the Russians could easily make a MIRV type missile that would penetrate the shield. The USA has said all along that it's not meant to make MAD with Russia or even China irrelevant.

It's all about North Korea. North Korea nukes Seattle. Then it says "we'll nuke LA next if you don't send us Quentin Tarantino!" Can the US reduce NK to a sheet of glass? Many Americans would agree it's a fitting response. However, even one nuke over NK would create a Chernobyl like disaster. South Korean, Russian, China, and Japan would all be devastated by fall out. Cows would have to be killed, top soil removed, crops destroyed... The Russians, Chinese, South Koreans, and Japanese might not be very friendly to having even the likes of NK being nuked in their backyard.

So the best defense is such a shield, something that can realistically defend against a small nation's limited missile capabilities.

Assuming this were true -- and I have no reason to doubt your assertion -- it have been easier to simply negotiate a codicil to the ABM treaty, that would allow the US to set up an ABM system to counter states such as North Korea. The US could have made a reasonable case to Russia that such a system was necessary; indeed, even the Russians might feel the need for such a system. The old ABM treaty forbade anti-ballistic missile systems, but gave Russia an exception to place a small ABM system around Moscow. Instead, the US decided to scrap the whole treaty.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

Octavius Hite wrote:

WASTE OF MONEY!

It's not your money!!!!

Why do you care?

Because the proliferation of ABM systems increases the likelihood of nuclear war. And a nuclear war would affect everybody, not just the belligerents.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

He answered it quite well, actually.

Uh... Where?

Ah, the simple things in life. That he did it so simply and you ahve absolutely no clue how just makes my afternoon.

Pligganease wrote:

EFLTrainer,

I realize that you are going to take any stance where you are given the ability to spew all of your "Everything that America does is wrong" stuff,

I realize you can't resist trolling, but....

[quote="Pligganease"]but you're saying that you'd rather see us use nuclear weapons than implement a system that allows us to not have to?/quote]

Where did I say use nuclear weapons?? Shocked

Quote:

Are you saying that if George Bush actually came out and said that we were going to plan "a missile strike on Yongbyon" you would support it? I doubt that you would. Like most other topics, you are simply against this just because Bush is for it.

I was being a tad facetious, but I would, indeed consider it. Of the two choices, NK with nukes and us wasting money on this stupid shield which may well also restart the arms race, taking out Yongbyon might actually be the better choice. One, noone is going to defend NK against it (though they'll certainly make tons of political hay); two it would be such a simple thing to do (comparatively) and cost so little; three, it would solve an awful lot of the proliferation problem and; four it would greatly reduce NKs bargaining position. Course, if there was any serious concern it would also start a ground war you'd need to pretty much toss the idea out.

Quote:

ROI? Are you telling me that you have a way to measure the worth of American lives and the feeling of security, false if it is, that the American people might enjoy from this? Please share that, because I'd love to see the formula. Contrary to what Mith might say, I do know a little bit about finance and economics. The unseen (Well, unseen by the opponents of it) benefits of this project are more than you might know. People always talk about the American media instilling fear into America, and then complain when the government is trying to eliminate some of that fear. You can't have it both ways.

The missile shield will eliminate nothing. It will likely start a new arms race. Oh, wait! It already did! I feel more secure already. Rolling Eyes

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject:

Few remember but I'm sure most everyone is glad that Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facilities in the early 80s. Unfortunately the Kim regime up north is dead-ending and I'm sure he knows it. Any strike on Yongbyon is just too likely to cause a full-scale war, plus there's the chance he already has nukes. And it would likely destroy the US-ROK alliance.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Ah, the simple things in life. That he did it so simply and you ahve absolutely no clue how just makes my afternoon.

The fact that Mith came back later and answered the question shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and are stretching for a comeback.

EFLtrainer wrote:

I realize you can't resist trolling, but....

Is "troll" your new it-word? You call everyone that disagrees with you a troll. Maybe that shows something...

Hey, Daechidong Waygookin called. He wants his sock back. You are, quite possibly, the biggest troll on this board.

EFLtrainer wrote:

The missile shield will eliminate nothing. It will likely start a new arms race. Oh, wait! It already did! I feel more secure already. Rolling Eyes

Let's see... Mithridates starts talking about economics, and suddenly you're using economic theory as your basis for debunking this plan. I refuted that opinion to the point that you could no longer use it, so you didn't reply.

Next, MoS makes a very good statement about the re-invigoration of the arms race, and you scoop that up as your own as well.

Try having an original opinion.

Wrench

Joined: 07 Apr 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:23 am Post subject:

Man youg guys should have listened to Patton and kept going east.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Ah, the simple things in life. That he did it so simply and you ahve absolutely no clue how just makes my afternoon.

The fact that Mith came back later and answered the question shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and are stretching for a comeback.

He responded, not answered. His original comment required no further comment unless you truly did not udnerstand his point. The very slim response he did give hardly explained anything. And it didn't need to. You still don't get that?

Quote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

I realize you can't resist trolling, but....

Is "troll" your new it-word? You call everyone that disagrees with you a troll. Maybe that shows something...

Trolling is obviously trying to provoke, which you do fairly often and did in this case.

EFLtrainer wrote:

The missile shield will eliminate nothing. It will likely start a new arms race. Oh, wait! It already did! I feel more secure already. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

See? Trolling.

As for the economic rationale, I did not bring that up. And what I *did* say was that I would prefer the money be spent elsewhere. I don't recall actually making the argument that it is good for the economy. I *did* point out that you didn't understand Mith's point. That is not the same as advocating his point. Anyways, I don't think it is the most salient point in the issue. However, for every study that says defense spending helps the economy there is another that considers it dead investment that essentially creates false economic recoveries. If there is a benefit to defense spending, it comes more from the innovation than the actual money spent.

Toodles.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:17 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Go ahead and admit that you're a moron. You tried to come up with something witty earlier and failed. Beating this dead horse of an argument into the ground isn't going to change the fact that you are wrong. Please, before posting again, go back and read what Mith wrote in his second post. You will see that he, himself, asserts that he didn't answer the question.

I understood exactly what he meant, but I wanted a little detail. You thought that you might seem a little cooler if you jumped on to Mith's comment and treated it like it was your own little baby.

EFLtrainer wrote:

Trolling is obviously trying to provoke, which you do fairly often and did in this case.

EFLtrainer wrote:

You disagree with me? You're a troll!

Pligganease wrote:

No, you're a troll!

EFLtrainer wrote:

No, you're a troll!

Pligganease wrote:

No, you're a troll!

EFLtrainer wrote:

No, you're a troll!

Pligganease wrote:

No, you're a troll!

Now that that is out of the way, try to find a better way to respond when things aren't going your way.

EFLtrainer wrote:

As for the economic rationale, I did not bring that up. And what I *did* say was that I would prefer the money be spent elsewhere. I don't recall actually making the argument that it is good for the economy.

I never said that you did say it was good for the economy. I said that you were trying to say that the ROI and risk assesments show that the missile defense plan was a bad idea. I asked you to show me that, but you didn't (or, should I say couldn't?).

EFLtrainer wrote:

I *did* point out that you didn't understand Mith's point.

No. You asserted that I didn't understand. What you did was try to jump into a discussion that Mithridates and I were having as an attempt to draw me into yet another one of your little bitch-fests. I swear you are Daechidong Waygookin's sock.

EFLtrainer wrote:

for every study that says defense spending helps the economy there is another that considers it dead investment that essentially creates false economic recoveries. If there is a benefit to defense spending, it comes more from the innovation than the actual money spent.

So, am I to assume that you are saying that there is something positive about this project? (That is, considering you disregard the billions of dollars being pumped back into the American economy....)