Ted Cruz Proposes Reviving SDI To Counter N. Korean Nuclear Threat (blastingnews.com) 349
MarkWhittington writes: One of the more substantive issues that was discussed during the Republican presidential debate in Detroit concerned the latest threat to come out of North Korea. That country's mad, bad, and dangerous to know leader Kim Jong-Un has ordered his nuclear arsenal prepared and is firing missiles in the vicinity of Japan. The United States and South Korea have started military maneuvers, partly as a result of North Korea's actions. Discussions on deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea have also become urgent. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas would go one step further. He proposed reviving the idea of space-based missile defenses that were part of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative.
And by that he means (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't they already basically bankrupt?
Yes, the US is bankrupt. 19 trillion in the hole in wasted tax breaks, welfare and wars.
Oh, you mean the North Koreans? Yeah, them too.
Re:And by that he means (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know what "bankrupt" means. It refers to liquidity; you are bankrupt when you can no longer meet your current obligations, which the US government has never been close to.
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
That is rubbish.
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014 [heritage.org]
Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2014: Government Spending Trends in Graphics, Tables, and Key Points [heritage.org]
Share of 2013 Spending
23.55% Social Security
18.33% National Defense
15.53% Income Security
14.41% Medicare
10.37% Health
06.39% Net Interest
04.02% Veterans Benefits and Services
02.65% Transportation
- truncated -
The US spends a great deal on public assistance / social welfare. The additional spending for the war in Afghanistan
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement programs aren't welfare. I know you feel the same way about them as welfare, but it's dishonest to treat them if they're the same.
If you were to go down to Florida with the message, "Eliminate all welfare!" that'd be a popular program with all the elderly people there, because they would assume you meant what you were actually saying. But if you said, "Eliminate Social Security!" I guarantee you'd get a different response.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, Social Security and Medicare are not part of the federal budget They're an entirely separate organization funded from an entirely separate income source. We pay into those programs in exchange for a promise of income or health coverage later, which means these programs cost the government nothing, because every penny in those trust funds is owed back to the people who paid into it, and thus cannot legitimately
Re: And by that he means (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be amazing if either of you pointed to a source.....
I guess facts can't be used in political conversation.
Re: And by that he means (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you haven't seen one of the televised debates lately.
Re: And by that he means (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you haven't seen one of the televised debates lately.
You mean those reality tv shows?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think he's referring to that thing with Will Farrell and Mark Wahlberg challenging each other with schoolyard insults. I think Will Farrell won.
I could provide a source to that, but I'd hate to break the fugue.
Re: And by that he means (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, when Democrats passed Obama's stimulus bill, it was about as costly as the Iraq war up to that point. Money only means something to the left, when it's not spent directly benefitting them.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a Ponzi scheme if it's underfunded. And that is a choice.
Yes, fully funding Social Security would mean admitting that it has been used to float much other spending, and then all the other lies come ablaze.
Re: And by that he means (Score:4, Insightful)
My source is the federal budget. My figures are actually a little bit off, in that the TANF program (the successor to the old AFDC welfare program) has a budget of 17 billion, not the 10 billion I was estimating, but it's still miniscule.
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to the poster was claiming that "welfare" was bankrupting the country. Actual welfare is a tiny program.
Re: And by that he means (Score:4, Informative)
Well, to answer your question literally, we'd have to go back to the 1930s, but that's skewed by the Great Depression, so let's look at Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs.
In 1959 the poverty rate for blacks was about 55%. Ten years later it was just over 30%. The poverty rates for whites + hispanics was about 17% in 1959, and about 10% ten years later.
Now saying the Great Society reduced poverty is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. We can't know that for sure. But the one thing we can conclude is that the public assistance programs of the 1960s didn't mire people in government dependency -- at least most people who were targeted. It's conceivable that this may have happened to some people, just as some people are injured by vaccines.
Re: And by that he means (Score:4, Insightful)
Well yes, there's always confounding factors as I noted. But I think the argument that welfare automatically makes people dependent on government handouts isn't supported by the data. That it may make some people dependent I don't doubt, but if the effect were as powerful as commonly suggested then you wouldn't see so many people lifting themselves out of poverty during the heydey of the welfare state.
Re: (Score:2)
The food stamp program is $74 billion according to this story http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/... [thefiscaltimes.com]
According to http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com] the iraq war has cost roughly 2 Trillion. So the GP is correct.
Actually I found a better website http://www.usgovernmentspendin... [usgovernmentspending.com] If you add
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is how you frame a argument. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's disingenuous is not including Social Security receipts in federal tax income figures.
Re: And by that he means (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And thinking it through, it is possible that we will soon enough be spending 101% of our federal budget on 'welfare programs'.
And then it's over.
Re: And by that he means (Score:5, Informative)
Except your wrong [reuters.com]
Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick.
The Iraq war tally will easily reach 6 trillion plus we have a ton of Veterans we aren't taking care of which is costing more and more money to deal with. But by all means, let's keep making more veterans, put more people needlessly into harms way to accomplish what?
Weapons got us into this mess, if we hadn't armed people during Iran Contra there would be a hell of a lot less weapons in the area and if we hadn't toppled the democratically elected Iran the whole region would be a lot more stable.
I have no idea why Reagan is held up as some kind of standard for Presidents. From what I can tell he united Germany, that was about it from what he did that was good. I'm sure there is more but trickle down economics started with him which was horrible, he helped solve Childhood hunger but then cut taxes so we couldn't afford it anymore. He removed our ability to deduct credit card interest rates on taxes. I would say he probably started the battle with the middle class.
Re: (Score:3)
"Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick."
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Now, I'm not oblivious to the need. But the federal government is perhaps the worst method to provide the needed assistance. LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels. People are
Re: And by that he means (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Please explain how more sick people is better than or equivalent to fewer sick people, with regard to the economy, even taking into account the cost of the financial aid.
Additionally, I'd like to reiterate an oft forgotten point. Poor people are great at putting their money to work for the economy. Give a poor person money and you can guarantee that it will be spent almost instantly, locally and generally on something that we consider part of the real and essential economy (yes, some of them buy drugs, but on average it goes to food, clothes, transport and other necessities). They sure as hell aren't going to put the money in a bank in the Cayman islands or import Russian caviar.
LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels.
Anecdotes, my friend. Do you have any argumentation towards why a federal government cannot efficiently do this on a fundamental level?
the poor will move where they have a chance.
The only place poor people can easily move to is the street. And that is exactly what happens in places like the US. Americans coming to our 'socialist' country always (with great surprise) ask us where all our homeless people are. The number of homeless people, let alone the many people obviously on the brink of being so, I saw when I recently visited the US was disheartening and morally disgusting.
"But our country is different!'
True, many Americans have a very Darwinistic view of how a society should work (which is ironic, given how few people 'believe' in biological evolution). They fail to see that even though it feels really unfair, it is objectively better to spend money to have 'moochers' sitting at home than to leave them to fuck up their lives and those of friends and strangers around them by roaming the streets, committing crime and seeking refuge in terrible drugs. And that doesn't even take into account the (economic!) benefits to society when poor people actually use the aid to grow and become tax-paying members of society.
I will readily admit that even in our 'socalist paradise' the exact same lack of insight is all too present, but as always: everything is bigger in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Military spending also boosts the economy. Admittedly, it doesn't do anything for easing the burden on hospitals.
As for weapons, most of what is being fired are AK-47s and RPGs, which are Soviet and Eastern Bloc licensed weapons. Yeah, we provided some of them indirectly but, they'd get the weapons no matter who gave them to them. The world is absolutely awash in small arms. If you were talking about more sophisticated weaponry, I might agree.
Note that in Iran-Contra, we armed Iran with TOW missiles and
Re: (Score:3)
Much funding for Sunni groups comes from the very rich denizens of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries. ISIS would not have gotten anywhere, for instance, without Sunni support. Even though the CIA money may well have contributed, I think you're vastly underestimating the support groups like ISIS get from sources more close to home. The CIA has definitely done some things in its history, but it hasn't been supporting these fighters since Reagan.
Remember, the support for the Afghan mujahadeen dried up
Re: (Score:3)
No, The Costs of War Project at Brown U thinks the cost will be 6 trillion over 40 years including interest. That's clearly a group without an agenda. The cost of public assistance over the same time period will be at least 80 Trillion, not including interest and maintaining current levels of spending. Sorry, you lose.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I pay into Social Security and Medicare. While there's some small chance I may be deluding myself that I will ever get any of that money back, I am paying into it with the expectation that I will actually be getting it back. Some day when I start to draw Social Security, I will do it knowing that I paid for it.
You're truth needs a reality check.
Re: And by that he means (Score:5, Insightful)
Medicaid, that is welfare. Food stamps are welfare. I'm not saying it is welfare I'm opposed to, I actually want to go to my grave having supported making the world a better place. Having grown up the child of a single mother who needed both of those things and having received medical care only because of them as a child they no doubt contributed greatly to me being where I am today.
Are there losers and deadbeats on the programs? Sure there are, most of them, but then that is true of most of those holding large wall street power accounts as well. All the red tape thrown up trying to prevent abuse and minimize these programs costs more in administrative overhead than the abuse itself creating a self-fulfilling prophecy on the inefficiency of government.
If you want to reduce the cost of these programs stop fighting the public option and start fighting to cut the costs and complexity of bringing medical devices and drugs on to the market that keeps the large scale healthcare industry entrenched and raises the barrier to entry.
Re:And by that he means (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you're talking about Social Security, you also have to include the fact that it also brings in revenue. Yes, eliminating Social Security would reduce the deficit, but not by the amount we spend on it, and it would have no effect whatsoever on our liquidity.
And "Social Security" is not "welfare".
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, it is more accurately defined as a ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a "Ponzi scheme" where the initial investors die off and their interest is transferred to the remaining investors.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't supposed to be. Fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much high tech (Score:5, Funny)
And get MX to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The ONLY thing 911 did was make the US (and not JUST the US) say 'enough is enough'.
I am quoting this portion only to take exception on behalf of the countries that joined us in Afghanistan, even though it wasn't their fight; especially non-NATO countries, who were there for no other obligation than that they are our friends. We were not alone.
Re: (Score:3)
The main attack was on the World Trade Center, which was located in the Host City for the Headquarters of the United Nations [wikipedia.org], it really was an attack on western culture and values, not just a country.
Re: (Score:2)
The few chemical and biological weapons found were old and unusable, with many having been lost or misplaced by the Iraqi government over the decades since they bought many of them from the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The few chemical and biological weapons found were old and unusable, with many having been lost or misplaced by the Iraqi government over the decades since they bought many of them from the US.
We'll never know for sure, but more and more stories are surfacing about soldiers finding chemical munitions that were covered up. Additionally this was a quantitative matter, not qualitative; I know Everybody was lying from day one. You simply can't have a chemical defense program as big as Iraq's without having live agents, if for no other reason than to validate your simulants. Personal Protective Equipument has to be tested for penetration, and under a wide array of conditions. When the official line w
Re:And by that he means (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Re-write history much? I'm not going to argue that going in to Iraq wasn't a mistake -- it was. But that's based on hindsight.
You are re-writing history. Many people said it was a mistake before the war. Hindsight wad not needed.
Re:And by that he means (Score:4, Informative)
Your NY Times reference appears to be be disagreeing with you. You are technically correct in that there were things that could be called chemical weapons in Iraq, but "All munitions found were left over from pre-1991 Iraqi program". Many of the reports about these weapons were very clear that they were in no way serviceable, and were so dangerous to handle that they were often incinerated on-site to reduce the danger to those handling them.
That link says nothing about Iraq having the ability to ramp up production, and I have never seen any evidence that that was so. There is no denying that Sadam talked about wanting/having it, but that was just talk (and many intelligence agencies said so). And the Bush administration's main justification for going to war was that they had an active program (no evidence at the time, and we now know they did not), with some vague references to them talking to terrorists (al-Qaeda specifically) with the idea that Iraq would be arming them. At the time it was known that there had been a meeting, but all of the intelligence agencies were pretty sure that despite having common enemies, the two groups despised each other on basic grounds (e.g. the Suni vs. Shia strife that is playing out now).
No one is ever going to argue that Sadam Husain was a good man or leader, nor that his son's were going to be when he passed the reign over. But he was holding Iraq together (brutally), and without major civilian casualties. We destroyed the military that was holding it together, and then disbanded all of the local police forces on the theory that they were loyal to the previous regime. Only counting the first 4 years the estimates in Iraq are between 151,000 to over a million civilian deaths. If we had not invaded, those would not have happened.
There was really nothing for us to accomplish in Iraq, and the only thing we did was to open up a cesspool and set fire to the middle east for the next generation or so.
Re:And by that he means (Score:5, Informative)
And lets not forget that Bush had a hard on for getting Iraq, someway, somehow.
Security briefing on day 1 of Bush's presidency: "How do we get Iraq?"
Security briefing on 9/11 attacks: "Can we use this to get Iraq?"
http://www.motherjones.com/pol... [motherjones.com]
http://www.timelines.ws/countr... [timelines.ws]
1/30/01
Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]
8/10/01
Major air raid on Iraq. (air defense installations destroyed [wsws.org])
Sep 2001
Curveball granted German asylum, ceases cooperating. British spy agency MI6 has told CIA that "elements of [his] behavior strike us as typical offabricators." [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
9/11/01
Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]
9/12/01
According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, "[Bush] told us, 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]
9/20/01
British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: "I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]
9/20/01
PNAC letter to Bush: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]
11/21/01
Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."—Bob Woodward. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
12/9/01
Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.
12/12/01
Rumsfeld demands plan for war against Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks proposes softening up Iraq: "I'm thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary. Spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity." [Date the public knew: 8/3/04]
12/28/01
Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]
Feb 2002
"I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'"—Sen. Bob Graham. [Date the public knew: 3/26/04]
March 2002
"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."—Bush to Rice and three senators. [Date the public knew: 12/8/03]
3/13/02
Bush on Osama: "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
3/22/02
Downing Street memo: "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincingWe are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from IraqRegime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/24/02
Saddam "is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."—Cheney on CNN
3/25/02
Downing Str
Re: (Score:3)
The report says just under 5000 total. Of those, a significant number were unusable and another significant number of them were already intentionally disabled (likely as part of compliance with their obligation). Another significant number had never contained the actual chemical weapon.
All were manufactured prior to 1991.
As for the rest, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That was the first big lie that got America involved in yet another costly (in money and lives) and unnecessary war.
Why not? The Star Wars movies no longer suck. (Score:2)
Why not? The Star Wars movies no longer suck, so the populace is ready to digest the sequel. Personally, I can't wait for green 45-degree lasers travelling a bit under the speed of light.
Re: (Score:3)
....Why not? The Star Wars movies no longer suck....
I vote for the Chewbacca defense against North Korean aggression.
Re: (Score:2)
Shaggy dudes with crossbows? I have to think that's already been a crappy reality show on TLC already. (Does anyone on SlashDot still have cable so we can find out for sure?)
Push that button (Score:2, Flamebait)
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the possibility that we could have the Zodiac Killer with his finger on the nuclear trigger. But that's just me.
And according to this news report, he also ate his own fucking booger on national TV.
http://www.inquisitr.com/28530... [inquisitr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technology continues its rapid advance (Score:3)
Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.
I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.
I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.
You do realize that the costs involved with developing missiles capable of carrying nukes (which again have to be designed for use on missiles which also costs a lot of money) over the necessary distance means that unstable 3rd world dictators and Islamic theocracies are very unlikely to even bother developing said technology, much less use it, right? The only use SDI had in the Cold War was to help bankrupt the Soviets who were trying to copy everything the US was doing.
Re:Technology continues its rapid advance (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.
This is what happens when you won't get along with your neighbors. Trotskyist Neocon Nirvana.
Anyhow, thanks for revealing your fearful nature.
I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.
They've all been replaced with H1-B visa holders from India. Make certain you trust them.
The original Star Wars was a feelgood pork project. A new version would be much the same. The problem of course is that you have to kill the missile early in the boost phase of operation. That phase doesn't last long, and if you go detonating your enemy's missile over another country, you almost certainly make yourself another enemy. If it makes it to your airspace to be detonated, you still have a failure what with EMP and radioactive snowflakes and all. How are people going to access their facebook? Ooops, sorry, cheap shot.
Are we any better now? Electronics certainly is, but there still isn't much time to react. And in a country where everything is considered "too expensive" any more, And the political situation abroad, I don't think planting the equivalent of ABM's right against the borders of our enemies - which in your case, appears to be everyone - will happen.
These considerations are't even political - they are some physics issues, which in the past have proven remarkably resilient to votes on whether they were true or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of course is that you have to kill the missile early in the boost phase of operation. That phase doesn't last long, and if you go detonating your enemy's missile over another country, you almost certainly make yourself another enemy.
I'm pretty confident that a space-based missile defense would not be "detonating" an enemy missile. If anything could be done, it would be to destroy the missile, almost certainly before it was even armed.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why there are all these crazy plans to colonize Mars... Those are the people that are ready to say "You want a war, go nutz! I'm out of here, go fight with yourself."
Rods of God (Score:3)
Seems like the ideal weapon to use against DPRK launch targets. Enough destructive power and penetrating ability to use against primary launch sites or bunkers, yet almost undetectable enough against a country like DPRK that you might even get away with plausible deniability and blame target destruction on a mishap.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't imagine it would be too hard to trace the source of a Rod from God. They should show up on military radar for one thing. The best bet at plausible deniability would be to blame a meteor, but a targeted nation will only buy that line once at most.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking something similar... after all, why keep depending on old-fashioned nukes? We got railguns [navy.mil] - why not work on miniaturization (of sorts) and launching same into orbit*? If nothing else, we could do the relatively low-tech route of carefully aiming large meteors [wikipedia.org] at a city (or seven) that needs to die, wiping 'em off the map completely without so much as a single sievert of radiation as byproduct.
* yes, yes - treaties and such... but if used purely for defensive purposes, I think it counts as ut
Might actually make some sense now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Might actually make some sense now (Score:5, Interesting)
Unable to achieve 100% intercept rate with SDI was not a "big issue". It was hyped as a big issue by people wanting to discredit the effort, mostly by smart-ass journalists and other ivy-league "intellectual" types to mock Reagan and make him seem like an imbecile. Achieving even a 10% intercept rate would be materially useful and save millions of lives, 50% tens of millions, and 75% a few hundred million.
That's what they were mocking - a man trying to save American lives. In the end, he ended up more-or-less ending the threat of world destruction from the Cold war.
Brett
Re:Might actually make some sense now (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, how close you get to 100% matters, and the amount it matters depends on the scale of the threat you're dealing with.
Suppose you are 90% effective. That's well worth it when you're talking about an adversary with the capability of striking you with ten, or even a hundred warheads, especially if they're small and unreliable. Russia currently has 1800 deployed warheads, with a stockpile of some 8500. But let's say conservatively in a period of high tensions the Soviets have a thousand warhead targeted at the US. 90% effective would mean we get hit with about 100 warheads, which in the Soviet era ICBMs were in the 3-5 MT range, or 200x to 300x the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Two or three, or even a half dozen such warheads would be survivable for a certain value of "survive", but a hundred would mean a highly probable total collapse of our society.
Now at the risk of sounding like a scare-quotes-intellectual, you really ought to consider how the opponent in this game will perceive and react to your missile defense system. If a hypothetical missile defense system is 100% effective or very close to it, it's game over; your enemy's missile arsenal is just useless junk. But if we're talking 90% effective, we're talking about a system which cannot stop the enemy arsenal from destroying us, provided that arsenal is intact.
So if you are a defense planner in the Kremlin, what is your assessment of this situation? That the Americans are stupid? Or that they intend to whittle down your arsenal with a first nuclear strike and then whittle down the survivors with the missile defense system? And if you are in a tense situation with the Americans, how does this affect your decision making? Do you use your arsenal early or risk losing it later?
So yes, those of us "intellectuals" with the handicap of being educated do rather think how close a missile defense system gets to 100% matters quite a bit. How close it has to be varies by situation of course. A 10% effectiveness rate would be materially useful against North Korea; it would have been merely destabilizing against the Soviets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you understand how many bombs and missiles Russia had during the Cold War. In 1988, Russia had ~45,000 nuclear devices [wikipedia.org], spread across ICBMs, submarine launched missiles, bomber dropped bombs, etc. Many of them were MIRV designs, which had up to 14 active warheads (and possibly dozens of decoy warheads) in them, all of which were substantially more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.
In a full scale nuclear war, most of those would be launched. If you took out 99% of them, that would still be 450+
Re: (Score:2)
SDI was/would have been worth it for any of 3 distinct reasons.
First, life. If it worked when needed, even a little, as you pointed out, it would have saved millions of lives.
Second, MAD. By defending our retaliatory capability, it would have enhanced the A and the D, further increasing the costs of an initial attack.
Third, Strategy of Technology (google it). Chasing us helped bankrupt the soviets. Communism produces mostly poverty, at a time when the west was producing apparently endless wealth. The s
Re: (Score:3)
Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy [wikipedia.org]: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy [wikipedia.org]: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.
Wasn't it more the fact that the Soviets had so many nuclear weapons that it simply wouldn't have mattered? And SDI really only works against ICBMs. Even if it had a 50% intercept rate that still leaves thousands of missiles. There there are aircraft armed with nuclear bombs/missiles, submarine-based nuclear missiles, you name it. The best case scenario had we fully developed SDI and there was a nuclear war was that you would have a slightly better chance of not getting bombed but would probably still e
Presumably so he can call them "Cruz Missiles" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers will Trump missiles anytime.
Crazy Cruz (Score:4, Insightful)
A small government conservative proposing pork barrel politics to counter a non-realistic threat in order to seem like he is the big man on the international stage solely for the purpose of getting elected.
As has been mentioned a lot of times before Kim thrives on crazy threats, and China needs a relatively stable NK (that doesn't actually carry out stupid shit) in order to maintain a buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
...China needs a relatively stable NK (that doesn't actually carry out stupid shit) in order to maintain a buffer.
This brings up a fun question:
A "buffer" against... what? Puny South Korea? A Japan that is too demographically old/rich/disinterested in China to bother invading? The Philippines? Mongolia?
Historically, I get it - post-WWII, fears of Japan and such were rather justified. But it's been what, 70 years and a metric shitload of geopolitical changes? Pretty sure the whole buffer idea is a bit, shall we say, outdated.
Re:Crazy Cruz (Score:5, Interesting)
...China needs a relatively stable NK (that doesn't actually carry out stupid shit) in order to maintain a buffer.
This brings up a fun question:
A "buffer" against... what? Puny South Korea? A Japan that is too demographically old/rich/disinterested in China to bother invading? The Philippines? Mongolia?
Historically, I get it - post-WWII, fears of Japan and such were rather justified. But it's been what, 70 years and a metric shitload of geopolitical changes? Pretty sure the whole buffer idea is a bit, shall we say, outdated.
The main reason for the existance of NK was to break up Korea and prevent a unified Korea from being an economic powerhouse dominating North Asia.
People look at NK today and its a basket case. But if Korea hadn't been broken up and that unified Korea had been under an economic management such as developed in South Korea, the agricultural wealth of the south and the mineral wealth of the north would have resulted in a nation which would be able to challenge even China, would have dwarfed Japan and would have been seen by the Soviet Union as a threat to their Eastern maritimes. South Korea has been doing pretty well industrially, great shipbuilding and other heavy industries. But thats nothing compared to what Korea COULD have been.
Consequently it was in the interest of all the regional powers, including the USA, to ensure that Korea was broken up.
For the Chinese, NK isn't a buffer in the normal sense of the world; its a handicap they are imposing on Korea as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
A "buffer" against... what?
A buffer against a few million NK refugees is a probably a good place to start.
But it's been what, 70 years and a metric shitload of geopolitical changes? Pretty sure the whole buffer idea is a bit, shall we say, outdated.
But do you really think that the people who control china have a modern mindset?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you think you have made some sort of point by specifically mentioning small government conservative. I guess maybe you did but it isn't the one you think. Small government conservatives recognize constitutional powers and defense is a legitimate constitutional power. In other words, defense spending does not go against the small government conservative ideology.
So I guess if you had a point, it might be that you talk about stuff you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
defense spending does not go against the small government conservative ideology.
Pork barrel spending on anythings is not small government ideology in any way shape or form.
I doubt SDI was ever really shelved (Score:3)
All Cruz proposes to do is admit that the research never really stopped, and take a look at deploying what we have. It would certainly be prudent to do SOMETHING to defend against rogue states (Iran, NK).
Re: (Score:2)
Launch phase (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Riding the corpse of Zombie Reagan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
rescue the people of North Korea . . . (Score:2)
A tiny smart bomb, aimed at the Supreme Commander's location could save the lives and well-being of countless deprived citizens of N. Korea. It might be the greatest humanitarian action of this century. It would cost almost nothing to accomplish. Or we could do what we always do and kill citizens and soldiers by the thousands while leaving evil kings and dictators to continue their course. Even if our smart bomb missed the little guy it would give him something to think about and an incentive for him to cha
Re: (Score:3)
A tiny smart bomb, aimed at the Supreme Commander's location could save the lives and well-being of countless deprived citizens of N. Korea. It might be the greatest humanitarian action of this century. It would cost almost nothing to accomplish. Or we could do what we always do and kill citizens and soldiers by the thousands while leaving evil kings and dictators to continue their course. Even if our smart bomb missed the little guy it would give him something to think about and an incentive for him to change his attitude.
Ok lets see.
Millions of starving people kept in check by an oppressive regime. Remove repressive regime. Whats millions of starving people, who now have no overwhelming political or military control directing their lives, going to do? What could possibly go wrong? My guess is they'd eat one another. Then eat the South Koreans, Chinese and Russians.
Not surprised... (Score:2)
Less Expensive Alternative (Score:2)
MDA? (Score:3)
Sure.... (Score:3)
Re:We should do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I share your sentiment about the ludicrosity of SDI, I would like to debunk the myth of massive civilian benefit from defense spending. Money purposefully invested in civilian research programs (antibiotics, medical imaging, public health strategies providing healthcare for all Americans if I might be parochial, roads, bridges, trains, and space and lasers as you say, etc.) would have a much LARGER impact than hoping for trickle-down technology from Halliburton, after they enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Halliburton does oil and construction, not military or space R&D. And that's the problem with talking points like "Halliburton;" you completely undercut your argument by not actually knowing anything about what you are "debunking".
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about the Halliburton that relocated their corporate headquarters to Dubai in the Middle East, right?
Re: We should do it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Defense R&D spending gave us stuff like solid-state electronics, jet-engines, and oh... this thing called the Internet. It continues to help advance robotics, trauma medicine, aviation, communications, and quite a bit more - even today.
But, you know, maybe next time post with your normal pseudonym if you want to impress that hipster chick sitting next to you in the coffeeshop. Just sayin'. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, defense spending has yielded some very impressive technological results. That does not, however, mean that a reasonable return will be had on any specific investment. Some people have made a lot of money playing professional poker - does that mean playing poker is a great investment? Only if you ignore the losers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We should do it (Score:4, Informative)
my guess is you weren't involved in the last SDI development effort.
just contractors lining up at the trough. an unequivocal waste. they tried to
keep it open for as long as they could after notable people came out and
said it will never be useful, but they had to shut off the spigot eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad fact that you have to bribe legislators into doing good thing as well as bad.
Re:Trump 2016!!! (Score:5, Funny)
That's why Bill went to Monica.
Re: (Score:2)
The Japan trump card (Score:3)
Actually, China is the key to this particular issue - North Korea playing w/ nukes. While I'm not against space based missile programs in principle, I'm not convinced that it's the necessary solution for this particular case.
I agree w/ Charles Krauthammer on the solution to this one. What do you do when you have such a weak hand? Play your trump. The US trump vis a vis China is JAPAN. The Chinese are still obsessed w/ their centuries old domination of the region, and their old enemies. Their main en