GMAB

Post #48,275 by wharris2 8/5/02 9:41:05 PM Reply	GMAB Without ICBM's, Saddam is going to have trouble getting those weapons to the US. Right. One cargo ship registered to France (or whatever country is selling registrations, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Columbia?) enters a NY, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, or whatever harbor and detonates their full-powered nuke (not a small suitcase nuke). Or starts spraying anthrax, or smallpox, or whatever. Once they get weapons, it's almost trivial to transport it to the U.S. Maybe less trivial to go someplace inland, like Denver or Chicago, but given the porous border still not that hard. Not to mention that the Mississipi/Missouri/Ohio river complex gives plenty of opportunities to wreak havoc on several major cities without anyone ever setting a foot onshore. ICBM? Who needs an ICBM for people willing to blow themselves up as suicide bombers? The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #48,293 by Brandioch 8/5/02 11:07:34 PM Reply	Possible, but I don't see that happening. Iraq doesn't do the suicide bomber scene. That's a Saudi and Palestinian thing. To put it another way, there is the same chance that an Iraqi suicide bomber will carry a nuke to the US as there is that a Chinese suicide bomber will carry a nuke to the US. Just as no Russian suicide bombers carried nukes to the US during the cold war. The same with the chemical/biological attacks. If he did develop them, we would not be his first target. Just as he didn't fire a bunch of SCUD's with chemicals on Israel during Gulf War I. But he will use chemicals against the Kurds.
Post #48,344 by boxley 8/6/02 8:52:48 AM Reply	subcontracting the delivery is possible ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #48,345 by Simon_Jester 8/6/02 9:06:16 AM Reply	Egads! That can't be so... why, if it were possible to do that...then... then... then we would we be spending billions of dollars on a missile defense system?
Post #48,356 by wharris2 8/6/02 10:21:37 AM Reply	They won't be without them forever Just because they may not have ICBM's today, doesn't mean they won't have them tomorrow. (Look at Pakistan, India - not quite ICBM-capable, yet, but doing their damnedest, not to mention the Chinese, who may have ICBM's at least capable of hitting our west coast already.) One problem with the "cargo ship" approach is the ever-present risk of discovery, or maybe someone getting cold feet and ratting them out. An ICBM system would make that a moot point. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #48,370 by Brandioch 8/6/02 11:15:13 AM Reply	Which gets back to my "anarchy" example. We should attack Saddam NOW because he MIGHT develop nukes and then he MIGHT develop ICBM's that can hit us. By that same logic, I should start shooting anyone in the city who MIGHT buy a gun and threaten me. Another difference between cargo ships and ICBM's is that the cargo ship approach would be a terrorist act (unless we had attacked first) while the ICBM approach would be the traditional MAD approach.
Post #48,372 by Simon_Jester 8/6/02 11:22:20 AM Reply	True... but it does raise the point of how effective this missile defense system is supposed to be, considering methods of attack do already exist and the missile defense system doesn't address these points. Let's ignore recent events regarding cold feet and chances of discovery, shall we? Chuckle. I don't disagree with anything that has been said and actually do support research efforts into missile defense systems. (I disagree that they are "ready" or "effective" currently). But I do find it interesting that many of the same people arguing for the toppling of Hussein are the same individuals arguing for the missile defense system.

Welcome to IWETHEY!