Missile Defense: The Multiple Kill Vehicle

[The Scotsman]

How many failures can you risk?

Its not a risk, its a certainty! No machine so far devised by man is perfect so the answer to the question is which city is going to be nuked?

IMHO Deterence is a function of many components not least of which is the identification of your weakest points that can be exploited by determind opponents. I guess that once the missiles are flying then you've pretty much failed in the deterence stakes anyway. So yes whilst I agree that having gizzmos and gadgets can give the public the appearance of defence the real argument is does this provide real protection or the mere perception of security.

What is to stop me sending a nuclear weapon into the heart of the states in a shipping container?

 

[BigRob]

Its not a risk, its a certainty! No machine so far devised by man is perfect so the answer to the question is which city is going to be nuked?

Which city is going to be "nuked" becomes irrelevant if you destroy the incoming warhead in space.

IMHO Deterence is a function of many components not least of which is the identification of your weakest points that can be exploited by a determind opponents. I guess that once the missiles are flying then you've pretty much failed in the deterence stakes anyway. So yes whilst I agree that having gizzmos and gadgets can give the appearance of security the real argument is does this provide real protection or the mere perception of security.

True, there will always be a way to get around the system if you are that determined. However, if you up the capability required to carry out an attack you will have fewer states that are capable of pulling it off, thus reducing your overall risk.

What is to stop me sending a nuclear weapon into the heart of the states in a shipping container?

Port security maybe, certainly not missile defense. This is geared towards one threat, which I feel I spelled out pretty clearly in the opening.

 

[BigRob]

Because if we could stop incoming missile, then we might be safe from income nuclear warheads, which of course would piss off people with nuclear war heads, and cause them to fire all their missiles at us because we can stop them, which ultimately would end up causing world war III, because clearly if we're safer, then the world is less safe....

Basically, if you are completely insane, the missile defense is bad.

Not to mention Shaman opposed this program because it was not "fail safe." At least those who buy into the deterrence you spell out can make a logical argument (in a way), but the notion that we should not pursue this program based on Shaman's reasoning means we need to do away with basically every program ever.