ield that would encompass the globe, the whole world? Wouldn't that make business more friendly all over? Wouldn't that make capitalistic democracy more possible everywhere and less tension between all enemies everywhere, thereby increasing stock profits from oil, minerals, manufacturing etc, basically allowing an increase of a heaven on earth? Why should we just build a shield for Europe or any other isolated group? Wouldn't it be beneficial and good will to help everyone?
2007-06-05 07:06:38 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am seeing comments in here about not being 100% full proof and that some nations don't like us. But I am talking about a system that no matter where a missile was fired from, it would be shot down, so that no country could fire a missile on any other country successfully from that point on. This might be done from satellites? But would it not be to our advantage and the free world's and mankind's evolution's advantage to control the destruction from missiles this way?
2007-06-06 02:37:41 · update #1
Should we be worried who is gonna pay for it? Isn't it more important to just get it into place to take care of one of the leaks of our tendency to destroy ourselves.....and then just move on to other problems or in parallel with fixing other problems? Why wait for someone to pay for something like this? As Nike says...."Just do it!".
2007-06-07 07:57:40 · update #2
Whose going to pay for this shield? It's nice idea, but putting it into practice would be a logistical nightmare. And as we've seen, certain insecure nations are hostile to the idea as it is.
2007-06-05 07:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I assume you have a job. Let's take a work scenario. If you have a boss who is 7 feet tall and was a professional boxer, and this boss threatened to punch you in the face every time you screwed up and "threatened" the bottom line of the company, would you be inclined to be a hard working, productive employee? Perhaps you would do everything in your power to avoid screwing up. Maybe you'd hide any mistakes you make. Maybe you'd get several other employees together and try to take on your boss. Many people would probably react differently. The bottom line is it would be a terrible work environment and just as many people would screw up, if not more just to spite the boss.
Add: I think it would be a very short-sighted, naive solution to a very large problem. Spending billions, if not trillions to put up missile shields in Europe, not to mention the ones in space, can deter a large scale military operation. Those plans, however, take away huge amounts of resources and do nothing to prevent against small group terrorist attacks.
2007-06-13 03:47:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So far, tests have shown that the missile defense programs do not operate anywhere near 100% efficiency. A missile defense shield will not prevent attacks from ICBMs, they have a small chance of stopping them. In terms of physics, it's difficult to intercept an ICBM traveling at Mach 1 or faster. If intercepted, the missile will still come down somewhere. The bottom line is the missile defense systems are not full proof measures of safety, and they are quite costly.
2007-06-05 07:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the U.S. is ( has been) prone to pre-emptive strikes against those in disagreement with them, this would be a marvelous tool to use in the future as the shield would prevent retaliation against the U.S.
Think long and hard about this and imagine that you are not an American.
What is " capitalistic democracy"?
2007-06-05 07:20:26 · answer #4 · answered by gshewman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ah, it most certainly would, except to build it "all over", we would need permission from "all over." And that is one thing we won't get. Our own "ally" Russia won't let us build a missile shield CLOSE to their borders. They are going back to paranoid cold war era behaviors.
Also, America is not that popular in Europe...*cough*French doughboys*cough*
Also, this missile defense system is a way to protect US and OUR INTERESTS/ALLIES, which is how the majority of the world sees it. You think we would use the system to protect Iran or Venezuela??
2007-06-05 07:13:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It would be in the world's best interests. And that being the case each and every citizen of Earth should have to pay their fair share of such a project.
Either that or we could lighten our stockpile of weapons by beginning to use them on all the nations that didn't want to pony up the dough. It's the No Play, No Play version of international diplomacy.
2007-06-05 07:14:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
"Should we be worried who is gonna pay for it? Isn't it more important to just get it into place to take care of one of the leaks of our tendency to destroy ourselves...?"
If we don't curb our "Just get it into place...." attitude and START worrying about "who is gonna pay for it?" we will go broke, or brokER than we already are.
2007-06-12 04:45:26 · answer #7 · answered by SCOTT M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with the "missile shield" is that they are highly advanced missiles themselves and can be used for offense just as easily as we can claim that they are just for defense.
2007-06-05 07:14:30 · answer #8 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If the whole world pissed of Cheney or Jew Perle I am sure the US will build a global missile shield too.
Don't piss off God = cheney
2007-06-05 07:14:49 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. USA U 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋