how to defend youself from a terrorist with a briefcase.

Mortal Monkey on 5/12/2006 at 00:51

At least the US was sensible enough to invest in a missile defence system as well.

SD on 5/12/2006 at 01:19

Quote Posted by Raven

WMD, remember those things are bad! How much value do we put on innocent casulaties and how does it compare to keeping the value of our economy. frankly I would be happy to take the economic hit if it lessened the shear stupidly of nuclear weapons for me and my children

You fail to understand the most basic reality of nuclear weapons, which is that we will never use them. That's pretty much the point.

Oh, and WMDs are only bad if the bad guys get them. We wouldn't be one of the top five military exporters in the world if we had some kind of moral objection to WMDs after all.

Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey

At least the US was sensible enough to invest in a missile defence system as well.

Which would be a nice idea, except it doesn't work so is an horrendous waste of money.

And even if it did work, it'd remove the entire point of nuclear weapons in the first place, because if one side can defend against nuclear weapons, then you no longer have Mutual Assured Destruction, and one side is able to strike first without the fear of reprisals. SDI disrupts the equilibrium that makes nuclear weapon launches impossible.

Kolya on 5/12/2006 at 02:41

I open the briefcase, give him my money and yell: "Don't spend it all on nuclear weapons Sunny!"

Wait, does he have the briefcase or me?

Rug Burn Junky on 5/12/2006 at 05:45

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

And even if it did work, it'd remove the entire point of nuclear weapons in the first place, because if one side can defend against nuclear weapons, then you no longer have Mutual Assured Destruction, and one side is able to strike first without the fear of reprisals. SDI disrupts the equilibrium that makes nuclear weapon launches impossible.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The 'point' of nuclear weapons is mutually assured destruction? Jesus fucking christ do you even read what you write before you shit it out on your keyboard?

Think this through and get back to us, because what you just posted is absolute fucking bullshit. You do not understand either the carrots or the sticks in this instance in the slightest.

"hey, wait a second guys, we shouldn't develop this because if it worked, it would make us immune to being FUCKING OBLITERATED IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR WAR, and STD says that that would miss the point of nuclear weapons."

Fucking christ you can't be this dumb, can you, really?

SD on 5/12/2006 at 09:04

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

You do not understand either the carrots or the sticks in this instance in the slightest.

hurr what

The point of MAD is that neither side can use the weapons. If one side can defend against them, then MAD is rendered irrelevant, and they can strike first without fear of destruction. Even Ronald Reagan recognised this, which is why he (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/) offered to give SDI to Russia.

Come back when you have a fucking clue :thumb:

Scots Taffer on 5/12/2006 at 10:30

oh dear

Kolya on 5/12/2006 at 12:47

What about the option that whoever had a working SDI could abandon nuclear weapons?

Matthew on 5/12/2006 at 12:51

But would you? Could you guarantee that your SDI system would be 100% accurate and effective all the time?

Kolya on 5/12/2006 at 13:01

As was pointed out before, this is not about using the devices. If I can persuade the world I have a working SDI there's no point in attacking me anymore. And if they did anyway, as has been said before: The dead won't come back to life from a retaliation strike.

Would I? You bet I would. This whole thing is crazy and I'd take the first chance of getting rid of nuclear weapons.

R Soul on 5/12/2006 at 13:28

If someone attacks you and you don't fight back, what's to stop them attacking you again? Would they feel it unsporting to have two turns?