Bush to Deploy Missile Defense by 2004

Seriously. You'd think they'd give us at least a week to forget that their system doesn't work at all.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=2&u=/nm/20021211/ts_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc_2


This absolutely boggles the mind.

 

Bush administration motto -

"All war, all the time"

 

Stand by and watch the US Govt buy the lemon of the century.

 

5 out of 8 isn't bad. Its not like the old system where they just missed all the time. 2 of the 3 misses were because the darn thing just didn't work. In other words, it was a building error, not the result of some grave inability of the thing to hit the target. If it is built correctly, it seems to hit at a fairly accurate rate thus far.

All treaties previously violated aside, I think this is promising. Especially with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.

I know it doesn't stop the person carrying a nuke scenario which is more of a threat.

 

Positive thinking will only get you so far (apparently, as far as a job in the current Administration)

Nope. Under the new & improved system, only 37.5% of our cities will be destroyed. If, that is, we ever have to face an onslaught warhead attack, which we won't. So I guess work or not, it's just a huge waste of *********king money. But let's give those rich folk more tax breaks.

So I'm supposed to feel better because they were too incompetent to build a missile that worked rather than because they were too incompetent to build a missile that hit the target? Thanks for clearing that up.

That was a nice way of saying this is one of the dumbest *********king things I've ever heard.

Except that they can't get the damn thing to work. And we're violating treaties. Right?

Name one of these newly proliferated countries capable of lobbing a bunch of warheads at us at the same time. Come to think of it, name any of them who could fire one at us.

So why again is this so promising if it doesn't address the more likely threats?

 

North Dakota.

 

Third largest Nuclear Power in the world.

 

I'll take my chances

 

Frontline's 'Missle Wars'

Did any of you guys catch the edition of Frontline (PBS) dealing with missle defense? It was an excellent program, quite informative. They showed just how easily the system can be foiled. And how much money is on the line, too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/

 

Here's one with South Florida's name written on it.

DUCK and COVER!!!!!

- from Fargo with Love.

 

US asks to use British spy base

The US has requested use of the RAF's early warning station at Fylingdales, North Yorkshire, as part of its controversial missile defence programme, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has announced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2582177.stm

 

Bush missile shield plan draws criticism

President Bush's plan to deploy a limited missile defense system by 2004 is unlikely to provoke the fierce Democratic opposition that President Reagan's plan encountered almost two decades ago, lawmakers say.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20021218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/missile_defense_9

 

That's because the Democrats used to have balls.

 

from BBC

Russia 'regrets' US anti-missile plan

 

I don't think this is a good idea. However, I'll bet anything all the kinks are worked out by the time his term ends. The missile defense is just going to be a way to make people feel safer b/c I seriously doubt that anyone will try anything that would require using it.

 

So you're saying we're going to drop $100 BILLION on a security blanket? Doesn't that strike you as a little expensive?

 

You'll bet anything? Anything? Can we have your left leg if it doesn't work? Hope you like crutches.

I'm supposed to feel safer knowing that we're wasting untold billions of dollars on a system that doesn't even work in ideal conditions (God forbid we should try the system out with a little wind shear) instead of using our resources towards threats we can actually quantify as existing?

Once again, name me one "up-and-coming" nuclear power who has the means to deliver an ICBM at us, never mind dozens of them, and I'll concede this whole think might, might not be a complete load of horseshit.

 

I doubt if he will be able to get the money out of Congress. Too many Congresscritters know its a boondoggle. Then again, Bush might just shred other programs to pay for it.

In either case all I can say is what a friggin waste of time, money and talent. Mostly money though.

 

We're already poised to take money out of public schools and Social Security. Maybe we can gut Medicare. Heck, Bush will never need Medicare.

 

There is no such thing as asking for too much defense money in the next Congress. If a funding request goes to the Hill, it will pass both houses. No one wants to go into the '04 election cycle with an opponent using this vote as proof that he/she is soft on defense.

 

Sad ... but too true.

 

There were 100 odd nuclear suitcase bombs made by the Russians during the cold war. A few years ago Alexander Lebed was charged with finding them by Yeltsin. He found about 80. That means there are 20 missing, or unaccounted for. Now, what happens if some loons like Al-Queda gets hold of one. They could possibly sneak it in and cause real mayhem, and this big missile jobby will be useless.

 

Well, The US government have just asked to use the Thule base radar in Greenland for such a shield. Im sure that the current danish government will say yes, but im not so sure the newly elected greenland homerule office will accept it.

But From a Danish or British perspective i dont see why we should offer our land for a system that for many years to come only will protect america

And who is the Enemy?

Iraq? North Korea?

why would any country attack the US which has the the most nukes, bio and chemical weapons in the world?


Of course such a shield would have been useful 911