It would eliminate the risk of Iran or North Korea being able to hit the U.S. with nuclear ballistic missles.
Of course there's going to be a tiny wackjob minority that will be against it, and I think everyone else could use a good laugh, so please explain your reasoning.
2006-07-19 12:50:45 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We definetly should, but it's really more a question of 'can we'. We're a far cry from developing laser systems that can shoot from space to hit an object traveling as fast as a missile.
2006-07-19 12:54:10 · answer #1 · answered by vols91060 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only a Idiot would think that more arms will solve any problem, you
need to read more. We have put $200 billion in Reagan's Laser "Star Wars" program and it still does not work. 1200 scientist say it will never work. Israel has the best arms in the world, Americans paid for them, they can't stop in coming missiles. Even our best systems "patriots" miss 60 percent of the time. North Korea is 10 years from reaching our shore and 5 years from putting a nuke on a rocket. If no one had nukes, no one would need to spend Tax payer money to pretend to defend America. We spend $400 billion a year now on defense and we can not even keep peace in Iraq, which is the size of Texas.
2006-07-19 20:24:08 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should advance our ground and sea based systems first. A "little bird" close to the bookkeeping told me that the Iraqi conflict has diverted substantial funds away from the projects we already have working in the Pacific Ocean.
The hyper-left wing will be against any and all military concepts until their precious freedoms have been underminded. But by then it is too late.
We can't 'cut bait' in Iraq but getting anti-defense properly funded should be a priority.
2006-07-19 20:08:39 · answer #3 · answered by Dirtt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for it if it makes the country safer - it would be a bonus if instead of completely destroying the missile, it neutralised the warhead, and redirected the missile to go up the butt of those who protested against the defence system!
They've been talking about this since the 70's - I can't believe it isn't in place yet! maybe it is, but it's being kept quiet so the russians don't try to sabotage it.
2006-07-19 19:58:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is a 'big' wackjob. You criticise the answers before you get them.
You have nowhere near the technology to do it. Unless you do it in your fantasies. You have been trying sinse 1983 and still can't do it
2006-07-19 19:56:01 · answer #5 · answered by Ferret 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should definitely develop a missile defense system. The type depends on technology. I am not qualified to make that choice.
2006-07-19 21:49:22 · answer #6 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutly we need this type of defense system. Reagan was right with Star-Wars. I hope we already have this and just don't know about it. BTW, I come from the left.
2006-07-19 21:23:03 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What risk? It is a military propaganda scheme to get budget allocation and for corporations to sell us junk science.
US has all the missiles and yet no one else is wasting money on this crap
2006-07-19 19:54:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-07-19 19:54:08 · answer #9 · answered by ivan_c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who says they haven't already? Remember Reagan's Star Wars initiative?
2006-07-19 22:16:27 · answer #10 · answered by amartouk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋