Missile Defense/Offense


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2009 October
2009 September
2009 April
2009 March
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Bookmark this site!

Missile Defense/Offense
01.06.05 (10:43 pm)   [edit]

The purpose missile defense, should it ever gets up and running, is not to defend against Russian missiles, or Chinese missiles. The idea that such a system would work against the Russians is absurd. The purpose is to prevent "rogue" nations, such as Iran with limited nuclear and missile technology from setting up a nuclear umbrella, which would deter the US from attacking.  In this sense the purpose of missile defense is not defensive per say, but offensive.  There is no nation on earth that would ever attack the US first.  The purpose of the system is to prevent some “rogue” nation from firing off a missile when it has nothing to loose or to remove the ability of such nations to threaten such actions. 


With regards to the war on terrorism, it would also do something else.  Minus a nuclear umbrella, such nations would be detered from allying with the likes of Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda would not be able to set up a base of operations under someone’s nuclear umbrella let alone carry out an attack on the US and then be able to scurry back under such an umbrella.              

 


posted by: tomi (reply)
post date: 01.06.05 (11:10 pm)

Not sure how a US-based defense counteracts another nation's "nuclear umbrella." Presumably an "umbrella" is defensive, and would launch against troops mobilizing in an adjacent country for an invasion of the "rogue," or against any nearby ally of the US, probably Israel in many of the current scenarios. Missile defense theoretically defends US home soil against nuclear missiles. Or do you mean that the US would deploy this shield technology around the world? It sounds like a very complex and unreliable variation of MAD: we neutralize their missiles so that we can launch a conventional invasion. I wouldn't want to bet my national security on it.



posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 01.07.05 (12:04 am)

In order to serve such a purpose, it certainly could not be limited to protecting just North America. However, although in its current form the US is limited to shooting down missiles by launching interceptor missiles, based primarily in the US, as I under stand it the Pentagon hopes to one day be cable of using satellites to shoot down enemy missiles and satellites can be deployed anywhere. I know it is all rather far fetched and my purpose is not to defend the idea as make it intelligible.
It is not that we neutralize their missiles so we can launch a conventional invasion. It is we demonstrate the capacity to neutralize their missiles such that we can credibly threaten to attack should a “rogue” nation ally itself with terrorist organizations, most notably Al Qaeda, that are hostile to the US.

With such a system in place, it would also deter other nations from seeking nuclear weapons. The costs of developing an effective weapons program (i.e, one cable of potentially getting missiles by such a defensive shield) would be that much greater.






posted by: Michelle (reply)
post date: 03.26.06 (10:00 am)

Gotcha real nice blog, great reading for your visitors.

Your Name:


Your Comment: