They won't be without them forever

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!