At 18:49 21-6-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > The missile shield is a bad idea, because (1) the taxpayers will have to
> > pay billions of dollars for a system that doesn't come with a 100%
> > effectiveness garantuee
>
>Well, it shouldn't be deployed until it is quite effective. But, assuming
>that it can be 95% effective, what is wrong with reducing 20 destroyed
>cities to just one?
Nothing wrong with that, unless you live in that one city...
But seriously, all an agressor has to do is launch more missiles at each
target. If you launch 10 nukes at, say, Washington, and 9 of them get taken
out by the missile shield, the missile that gets through will still destroy
Washington.
> > Sorry, no long technical analysis. Certainly not at 11 pm...
>
>I understand that, but can I assume that you have not made such an analysis
>yet?
If you mean "an extensive scientific analysis", then you assume correctly.
I can't write a scientific analysis, for the simple reason that I don't
have a scientific training and background. This does not mean however that
I haven't given the matter a lot of thought.
> > North Korea and Iran may seem (or even be) agressive, but I don't think
> > that threat is so great that it validates such a huge expenditure on a
> > missile shield.
>
>Let us assume that a shield is possible. Would Iran and North Korea having
>the capacity to hit the US and Europe be enough for you to change your mind?
No, because any country's goverment, no matter how insane their leaders,
will realize that other methods (like terrorist bombings) are far more
effective. If need be, they can even claim after a bombing that they were
not involved, but that the attack was an action by some faction over which
they have no control.
>Actually, they aren't the ones that worry me the most. I'm concerned about
>Russia continuing to decay and losing command and control of their missiles.
>That could turn into a nightmare, with a small group of fanatics holding the
>world hostage with 3 or 4 MIRV missiles.
Several months ago I saw a documentary about this. It was said that the
Soviets had developed a number of small nuclear bombs that were carried in
large briefcases. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some of those
briefcases have gone missing...
Now that is something I find very worrying. I'm not sure though if this
briefcase-story is actually true, or just rumours.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
