If nuclear weopens are no longer a deterrant (the shield thing kills the detterant arguement ) then won't the shield actually encourage growth of nuclear weopens production by americas enemies and (current) allies to dodge the shield, in the event of a war?
If there is a nuclear war, won't america simply have thousands upon thousands more nuclear weapons shot at it, to overwhelm the sheild?
In short... is the whole shield thing worth tearing up the quiet understanding between america and other nuke nations, while destroying the deterrant aspect of nukes (which they were designed for) and creating massive political fallout and hostility in americas friends or old adversaries - whilst also actualy raising the possibility that more nukes will fall on america?
2007-06-05 10:24:24 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually, this shield is a political weapon, he is not even supposed to work efficiantly. The US, miss the cold war, so the neocons wants to reignite it using such project...
They just need this to install new totalitarian style policies in the US, and need a potent opponent to justify it... Look like Ben laden has not enough ICBM's to the likes of the neocons to represent the researched symbolic.
Oh yeah, I forgot, now that the Russians have petrole, they can financed another cold war... A few years back it could not have been possible...
2007-06-05 10:30:10 · answer #1 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bush is a scared man. He has made so many enemy's for the people of America but also for the world.
Bush has re-created the 'Cold War' and now he and his advisors are afraid of the outcome.
Who is going to fund this 'shield in Europe?' How many billions is it going to cost?
It's just a new political game to take away the controversy from the G8 summit, to create a distraction from the policies and action needed.
In addition, transfer the problem in the head-lines from the middle east to Europe. Russia will just become the new terrorists to democracy.
If the button is pushed, no-shield will protect anyone. Those who order and push the button will be safe. The rest of us will be dust.
2007-06-05 18:19:51 · answer #2 · answered by essex_reject77 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "shield" is an expensive boondoggle. It has been proven to be ineffective in testing. By deploying this anti missile system, the US is going back on the anti-proliferation treaty of 1970. This will open up a whole new arms race. The "shield" will not protect us from people who fly planes into buildings, smuggle weapons in through our insecure ports or borders, or make bombs in their basement. The only people who will gain from this twenty first century arms race are the weapons manufacturers.
2007-06-05 17:49:32 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The amount of thermal nuclear arsenals that a nation possesses isn't really the issue - one single, several megaton bomb and the ability to deliver it is sufficient as a deterrent.
It reminds me of the story I heard once about two men standing in a tunnel saturated with gasoline - one has a single match and the other has several match books. Which one has the most power?
And now, apparently, one of them has threatened to buy himself a fire extinguisher - it might seem like a good idea on the surface, but it won't make a damned bit of difference if cooler heads don't prevail.
2007-06-05 17:45:13 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Russians have been developing a new ICBM that will evade the shield as their president has been saying. Of course people will overwhelm the shield and nuke all under it and they too will get nuked and its goodbye from them and goodbye from us. All because GW Bush is as thick as two short trunks from the Amazon rain Forrest. You have figured it out. I have too and so have the Russians. Now tell me what planet is Bush on. (or Blair, his LD)?
2007-06-05 19:48:46 · answer #5 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole thing has been dreamt up by morons. I can't believe Bush wants to waste even more tax payer's money on this missile defence non-sense. The further Britain and Europe keep away from American foreign policy the better. If we want to shoot ourselves in the foot we don't need the Americans to show us how, even though they are specialists.
2007-06-05 17:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only way your argument would make sense is if the US deployed tens of thousands of interceptor missiles. Otherwise, they only serve to protect against a very small number of incoming missiles.
2007-06-05 17:37:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no one can win a nuclear war. even if the US is nuked it will still manage to fire off its own missiles, and a full blown nuclear war can destroy the world in 30 minutes
2007-06-05 17:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope . Completely illogical . Besides , those missiles are clearly for defense and not from Russia either , although they would come in handy if needed .
We live in a different world now . The threat of mutually assured destruction does not apply to people who don't care how many people die . And those people are the Radical Islamist Terrorists .
Your scenario would end in total destruction for all .
2007-06-05 17:33:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
ABMs are not nearly effective enough to counter the deterent effect of the nuclear forces of major powers like Russia, China or the US. MAD is intact.
They might serve to counter the ballistic missle threat from a nation like Iran or the DPRK, but those threats are not sufficient to act as a deterent as it is.
2007-06-05 17:30:17 · answer #10 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋