Date: 6/17/2001 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 32806
LoL no it would not be effective. The bombs could be aimed to go off outside the shield and the radiation would gently drift across America. Plus if enough missiles were fired at once could it REALLY stop them all?  |
Date: 6/17/2001 10:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 1461
I think the US should pursue the development of an "EFFECTIVE" missile defense shield; something like a space-based laser defense shield, or a defense system that was researched, tested and accurately thoughtout and engineered to prove effective when the time and need came to use the missile shield.Although the shield would prove ineffective to suitcase nukes and other bio/chem devices smuggled in by terrorist, the shield would add a sense of security against ICBM attacks even though it may be a false one.The shield in the most probable case would not be able to destroy all ICBMs' launched, but if ten out of twenty were destroyed,or five out of ten destroyed it would have proved its worth. A missile shield is always better than no missile defense shield.  |
Date: 6/17/2001 11:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
A missile defense system is at heart a wonderful idea,it would protect American citizens: the sole job of the US Government. Let us put aside the technical feasibility a such a system and look at the caontept of "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "MAD". We know that the Russians probably don't want to fire nuclear missiles at us-- and will try to avoid it at all costs-- because they know that even if they decimate the entire continental US, even one of our nuclear attack subs could really threaten their exsistance, and more than one will assure that they get the same fate as us. It's the same with us, why we won't launch. But if one side becomes even partially immune to ICBM attack, then the other side become scared and we have another cuban missile crisis on our hands. But, due to the number of rogue or hostile nations which now have nuclear capabilities, I am for the missile defense system 100% Then all we'd have to worry about is the possibility of someone sneaking a nuclear warhead accross the Canadian border in a backpack. The U.S.-Canadian border is, after all, the longest unprotected border in the world.  |
|
Date: 6/17/2001 11:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 32806
Just like to add that the yield of modern nukes are far greater than was dropped during WW2. If only a few get through the shield there will not be much left of America. It would be a very false sense of security. You should be more worried about the dismantling of the stockpiles of nuke weapons. Much has been stored in huge underground bunkers in earthquake zones. |
Date: 6/18/2001 7:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 34341
Sounds like it would be a lot of wasted money to me. Just imagine what things would be like if that money was put into diplomacy instead...there likely wouldn't be the need for a shield. I think that terrorism is a much more dangerous threat than nuclear war, these days...<glock>  |
27398 Category:(Debate) Created:(6/17/2001 9:06:00 PM)