If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Study finds that the U.S. is vulnerable to long range missile attacks, here comes the tax hiking science   (sfgate.com) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, U.S.  
•       •       •

3146 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2012 at 7:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 03:24:28 AM  
Luckily for us, everyone is vulnerable to long range missile attacks.

/vulnerable to short and medium range missiles as well
//also vulnerable to Martians
 
2012-09-12 07:25:14 AM  
From who exactly?
 
2012-09-12 08:01:55 AM  
That's what these are for subby.

/SALT limits our ABM capability.....this is on purpose
 
2012-09-12 08:02:37 AM  

Mugato: From who exactly?


Iran comes to mind. Currently they only have intermediate-range ballistic missiles (like the Fajr-3, which has a range of 1250 miles) but I'm sure they're working on longer-range systems. They've already got MIRV warheads on the Fajr-3, so it's not like they using cut-rate bottle rockets...
 
2012-09-12 08:03:25 AM  

Mugato: From who exactly?


From us.
 
2012-09-12 08:04:37 AM  
Is this a repeat from 1955?
 
2012-09-12 08:07:36 AM  

svenge: Mugato: From who exactly?

Iran comes to mind. Currently they only have intermediate-range ballistic missiles (like the Fajr-3, which has a range of 1250 miles) but I'm sure they're working on longer-range systems. They've already got MIRV warheads on the Fajr-3, so it's not like they using cut-rate bottle rockets...


At what point do we realize that Iran, despite saber rattling, has not ONCE in the last 50 years made a single move that was outright suicidal? They will not pre-emptively attack Israel openly. They will not pre-emptively attack the US openly.

What they want is to have a nuke and missile to prevent either the US or Israel (or a neighbor) from attacking them so that they can focus on indirect methods of projecting and gaining power in the region.

Iran is a bad actor, but let's not make them into the next USSR.
 
2012-09-12 08:08:15 AM  

Mugato: From who exactly?


Right now? No one. Ten years from now? Who knows. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and it's only a matter of time until more and more countries have nuclear tipped long range ballistic missiles. To develop a system that can shoot down a limited attack makes sense to me. While it's not feasible to stop a large scale attack, it's not only feasible, but logical to build a system that can stop a couple of 1960's style missiles filed from North Korea, Iran, etc. The cost of a limited system like that would be far less than the damage one missile could cause to a U.S. city.
 
2012-09-12 08:10:38 AM  

Voiceofreason01: That's what these are for subby.

/SALT limits our ABM capability.....this is on purpose


.
.
Too bad we pulled out of SALT.
 
2012-09-12 08:14:01 AM  

Deneb81:
What they want is to have a nuke and missile to prevent either the US or Israel (or a neighbor) from attacking them so that they can focus on indirect methods of projecting and gaining power in the region.

Iran is a bad actor, but let's not make them into the next USSR.


They want a nuke and a missile so people will stop farking with them: first the British and Russians, then the US, then Iraq, now us(again) and Israel.(and that's just since WWII)
 
2012-09-12 08:17:58 AM  

Voiceofreason01: That's what these are for subby.

/SALT limits our ABM capability.....this is on purpose


MAD only works if everyone is fairly reasonable. As more and more countries gain the technology, the odds of an illogical actor gaining control of nuclear weapons increases greatly. My biggest fear currently is Pakistan. Our mucking around in the region is having a destabilizing effect. If Pakistan descends into anarchy and civil war, who gains control of their nukes?
And that's just one example, who knows who's going to have control of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles in the future?
 
2012-09-12 08:18:36 AM  
Id they hit Detroit, would anyone notice?
 
2012-09-12 08:18:59 AM  

maddogdelta: Is this a repeat from 1955?


I don't care what you farking hippies think - we cannot allow a mine shaft gap!
 
2012-09-12 08:24:18 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: maddogdelta: Is this a repeat from 1955?

I don't care what you farking hippies think - we cannot allow a mine shaft gap!


Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
 
2012-09-12 08:26:42 AM  

BigBooper: Voiceofreason01: That's what these are for subby.

/SALT limits our ABM capability.....this is on purpose

MAD only works if everyone is fairly reasonable. As more and more countries gain the technology, the odds of an illogical actor gaining control of nuclear weapons increases greatly. My biggest fear currently is Pakistan. Our mucking around in the region is having a destabilizing effect. If Pakistan descends into anarchy and civil war, who gains control of their nukes?
And that's just one example, who knows who's going to have control of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles in the future?


What are the odds that a completely irrational actor can even get to the point of running a stable enough to produce both a nuclear weapon and ICBM AND do it quickly enough or with enough secrecy that they aren't attacked first?

Best Korea was the closest and even they backed down and can't get a middle to work. Iran isn't irrational. India and Pakistan aren't.

Your biggest threat for the next 30 years from nuclear attacks is still going to be 'lost' warheads and truck/suitcase bombs. Those don't take a lot of organization or people compared to running a country, economy, science program and military.
 
2012-09-12 08:26:44 AM  
Over under on the "costly and unnecessary systems" being education and healthcare?
 
2012-09-12 08:27:02 AM  

Shirley Ujest: Id they hit Detroit, would anyone notice?


A nuke that leveled the city center of Detroit would save the city millions in demolition costs!
 
2012-09-12 08:28:19 AM  

Deneb81: At what point do we realize that Iran, despite saber rattling, has not ONCE in the last 50 years made a single move that was outright suicidal?


In fact, really the only major conflict Iran has been involved in since the Islamic Revolution was the Iran/Iraq war, in which the United States backed Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against them. Really, it sort of makes sense for them to develop a sort of MAD against the a large neo-imperalist state that has shown it's willing to back insane despots in attacks against them.
 
2012-09-12 08:28:30 AM  

Deneb81: What they want is to have a nuke and missile to prevent either the US or Israel (or a neighbor) from attacking them so that they can focus on indirect methods of projecting and gaining power in the region.


It doesn't prevent someon from attacking them.


Iran is a bad actor, but let's not make them into the next USSR

The USSR wasn't run by religious fundamentalists of a sect that believe that a war will bring about their messiah.
 
2012-09-12 08:29:22 AM  
Has our fear of terrorism waned to the point that the republicans have to ramp up the Cold War again?
 
2012-09-12 08:36:24 AM  

liam76: Deneb81: What they want is to have a nuke and missile to prevent either the US or Israel (or a neighbor) from attacking them so that they can focus on indirect methods of projecting and gaining power in the region.

It doesn't prevent someon from attacking them.


Iran is a bad actor, but let's not make them into the next USSR

The USSR wasn't run by religious fundamentalists of a sect that believe that a war will bring about their messiah.


Who is going to make a first strike on a nuclear armed country? Not ONCE has a nuclear power been attacked by another country through direct means. Ever. If you're going to argue that having a nuke doesn't provide a serious deterrent to direct military action, you better do more than say 'nu-uh'!

And again, saber rattling aside, name one major foreign policy action Iran has ever taken that was irrational under a secular power grab mentality.
 
2012-09-12 08:38:34 AM  
Give me 10 billion dollars; I'll go make them promise to be good.
 
2012-09-12 08:39:45 AM  
Well the only thing protecting us for the last 50-60 years or so has been maintaining a nuclear deterrent. These days it isn't the guy with 1000 nuclear warheads you should worry about, it's the guy with just 1.
 
2012-09-12 08:47:22 AM  

Deneb81: hat are the odds that a completely irrational actor can even get to the point of running a stable enough to produce both a nuclear weapon and ICBM AND do it quickly enough or with enough secrecy that they aren't attacked first?

Best Korea was the closest and even they backed down and can't get a middle to work. Iran isn't irrational. India and Pakistan aren't.

Your biggest threat for the next 30 years from nuclear attacks is still going to be 'lost' warheads and truck/suitcase bombs. Those don't take a lot of organization or people compared to running a country, economy, science program and military.


Your right, odds are that an illogical actor isn't going to develop an advanced weapon system like a nuclear missile. But as more and more countries develop the technology, the odds increase that an illogical actor could gain control of such a weapon. And while a 'lost' warhead being floated into a major harbor in a container ship is a real threat, even that that scenario requires significant logistical command. On the other hand, a bad actor gaining control of a missile silo only needs either the codes, or someone who can override them, and the will to 'push the button'.

The bottom line is that the cost of one nuke going off in our country is so high, that we need to defend against all methods of delivery.
 
2012-09-12 08:51:58 AM  

Deneb81: Who is going to make a first strike on a nuclear armed country?


Is going to or is likely to? If you are ok with me answering the "likely to", here you go.

A run by religious fundamentalist theocracy that believe that a war will bring about their messiah. You know, like Iran.


Deneb81: If you're going to argue that having a nuke doesn't provide a serious deterrent to direct military action, you better do more than say 'nu-uh'!


I didn't say 'nu-uh'. I pionted out how the leadership of USSR isn't really like that of Iran, and you ignored that.


Deneb81: And again, saber rattling aside, name one major foreign policy action Iran has ever taken that was irrational under a secular power grab mentality


Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.
 
2012-09-12 09:05:19 AM  

liam76: Deneb81: Who is going to make a first strike on a nuclear armed country?

Is going to or is likely to? If you are ok with me answering the "likely to", here you go.

A run by religious fundamentalist theocracy that believe that a war will bring about their messiah. You know, like Iran.


Deneb81: If you're going to argue that having a nuke doesn't provide a serious deterrent to direct military action, you better do more than say 'nu-uh'!

I didn't say 'nu-uh'. I pionted out how the leadership of USSR isn't really like that of Iran, and you ignored that.


Deneb81: And again, saber rattling aside, name one major foreign policy action Iran has ever taken that was irrational under a secular power grab mentality

Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.


The leadership of Iran is very much like the USSR.

Both are paranoid regimes primarily concerned with their regional sphere of influence and deathly afraid of foreign intervention/encroachment. Both nation states were subjected to devastating invasions in recent history. Both nation states dealt with significant foreign interference in their domestic affairs (The Russian Civil War vs. Iran/Iraq or the whole Shah thing)

The use of Islam by the Ayatollahs is a way to maintain domestic control. Just as how the idea of communism was a similar smoke screen. (The Soviet version of communism was most certainly not what Marx had in mind) If they were truly an irrational actor they would have acted in a direct manner against Israel with the myriad of weapons they currently possess.

The rhetoric and sabre rattling from Ahmedinijad is just that: rhetoric and sabre rattling. His actual power is very limited and most certainly does not extend to the military. The Iranian Revolutionary Council is where that power is and they may as well be the Politburo of old for how much the maintenance of their hold over the country governs all their decisions.
 
2012-09-12 09:12:13 AM  

liam76: Deneb81: Who is going to make a first strike on a nuclear armed country?

Is going to or is likely to? If you are ok with me answering the "likely to", here you go.

A run by religious fundamentalist theocracy that believe that a war will bring about their messiah. You know, like Iran.


Deneb81: If you're going to argue that having a nuke doesn't provide a serious deterrent to direct military action, you better do more than say 'nu-uh'!

I didn't say 'nu-uh'. I pionted out how the leadership of USSR isn't really like that of Iran, and you ignored that.


Deneb81: And again, saber rattling aside, name one major foreign policy action Iran has ever taken that was irrational under a secular power grab mentality

Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.


Except that the Iranians don't trust the UN, EU, or the West at all. While they need nuclear power and could really use the trade right now neither of those protect them from invasion. The most reliable means in history of preventing your country from being invaded right now is the possession of nuclear weapons. As someone else said: a country with nukes has never been directly challenged. Yes, they have only been on the table for a few years but they have quite the record of success. India and Pakistan fought 3 separate wars against one another in a very short period of time. Since both country's have acquired nuclear weapons wide scale, direct fighting has not occured. The West and Eastern Bloc stared down the gun barrels at one another dozens of times in the 60ish years of the cold war yet not a shot was fired. How often have nation states been THAT close to firing, and held back?

Now, I must qualify this. I am not advocating for nuclear weapons. The world would be safer without them because the consequences of a war that makes use of such weapons are just too great. But one must be blind if you can't see why Iran would like to have one.
 
2012-09-12 09:17:15 AM  
US is also vulnerable to alien attack and mass driver orbital bombardment. We need to be taxed 100% to develop a national shield. Made of super thick bomb glass.
 
2012-09-12 09:25:08 AM  

liam76: Deneb81: Who is going to make a first strike on a nuclear armed country?

Is going to or is likely to? If you are ok with me answering the "likely to", here you go.

A run by religious fundamentalist theocracy that believe that a war will bring about their messiah. You know, like Iran.


Deneb81: If you're going to argue that having a nuke doesn't provide a serious deterrent to direct military action, you better do more than say 'nu-uh'!

I didn't say 'nu-uh'. I pionted out how the leadership of USSR isn't really like that of Iran, and you ignored that.


Deneb81: And again, saber rattling aside, name one major foreign policy action Iran has ever taken that was irrational under a secular power grab mentality

Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.


How does a nuclear reactor protect them from being deposed by the US and Israel? How does it protect them from further UN encroachment to their absolute control of their country and the surrounding region?

It doesn't. The money isn't the issue. A nuke secures them from any direct outside intervention as a threat to their power. This frees them to use their already sizable oil income to extend power into the gulf areas, Syria, Iraq and Palestine.

This isn't about them wanting money - but that's not irrational. It's about securing total control so they can gain POWER. They're not good men, but they're not unhinged.
 
2012-09-12 09:28:13 AM  
Better shift the entire education budget to defense. Just in case.
 
2012-09-12 09:32:03 AM  
This panel brought to you by the anti missile system manufacturers of America.

/And no doubt a few suitcases of money.
 
2012-09-12 09:36:07 AM  
This is not a repeat of 1960, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 ... 81, 82, 83, 84, ... 91, 92, 93, 94 ... 2001, 02, 03, 04 ...
 
2012-09-12 09:44:27 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: The leadership of Iran is very much like the USSR.

Both are paranoid regimes primarily concerned with their regional sphere of influence and deathly afraid of foreign intervention/encroachment. Both nation states were subjected to devastating invasions in recent history. Both nation states dealt with significant foreign interference in their domestic affairs (The Russian Civil War vs. Iran/Iraq or the whole Shah thing)


So you are arguing that atheocracy isn't primarily concerned with religion?

Really?


Wicked Chinchilla: The use of Islam by the Ayatollahs is a way to maintain domestic control. Just as how the idea of communism was a similar smoke screen. (The Soviet version of communism was most certainly not what Marx had in mind)


Islam isn't a smoke screen to the Ayatollahs. They didn't just take a govt job, rise up int he ranks then start pretending to be religious. The Iranian versionof Islam is what Mo had in mind (according to the ayatollahs).



Wicked Chinchilla:If they were truly an irrational actor they would have acted in a direct manner against Israel with the myriad of weapons they currently possess

They haven't acted in a direct manner because they can't "win" (wipe out Israel) with a nuke they could.


Wicked Chinchilla: The rhetoric and sabre rattling from Ahmedinijad is just that: rhetoric and sabre rattling. His actual power is very limited and most certainly does not extend to the military. The Iranian Revolutionary Council is where that power is and they may as well be the Politburo of old for how much the maintenance of their hold over the country governs all their decisions


It isn't just coming from Ahmedinijad, and if you think for a minute he would keep it up if Khamenei told him to knowck it off you really don't get the power structure there (although other than your stance on the importance of religion you do seem to get it).
 
2012-09-12 09:56:00 AM  

liam76: Wicked Chinchilla: The leadership of Iran is very much like the USSR.



So you are arguing that atheocracy isn't primarily concerned with religion?

Really?


Islam isn't a smoke screen to the Ayatollahs. They didn't just take a govt job, rise up int he ranks then start pretending to be religious. The Iranian versionof Islam is what Mo had in mind (according to the ayatollahs).


They haven't acted in a direct manner because they can't "win" (wipe out Israel) with a nuke they could.


It isn't just coming from Ahmedinijad, and if you think for a minute he would keep it up if Khamenei told him to knowck it off you really don't get the power structure there (although other than your stance on the importance of religion you do seem to get it).


In answer to your first question: Yes. I am arguing that at the highest levels the theocracy is less concerned with their religion than they are about their power.

The country as a whole is a theocracy. Their judicial system reflects this, lower government officials, etc. I also don't doubt that originally the Ayatollahs intentions were indeed pure with reference to the Islamic revolution (at least, most of them were true believers). However, I also believe their pure intentions have been corrupted by being in power for 30 years. I don't believe the Iranians will sacrifice their entire country, and the entirety of their power, just to hit Israel.

Your post actually provides evidence to their more rational nature. An irrational actor does not care whether they will win or lose, they just want to cause harm or damage. By acknowledging that Iran has not moved because they have no chance of victory you mark them as in fact acting rationally (which is also my argument). I would also argue that if the destruction if Israel were their goal it would be a far cheaper, technologically simpler, and more concealable solution to restart their chemical or biological weapons programs. Its much easier to claim you are making pesticides than explaining away banks of high speed centrifuges.

Khameni also is not going to tell Ahmedinijad to knock it off. The rhetoric has always been mostly aimed at domestic consumption. Just like the Soviets.

We both get it, we just both have a different view of the ruling elite.
 
2012-09-12 09:56:22 AM  

liam76: Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.


It goes way beyond religion. Remember, the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology is something that the hardline Islamists in power and the secular revolutionary movement are in full agreement on.
 
2012-09-12 10:00:12 AM  
Well WTF else are "TOP scientists and military experts" going to conclude?
No, there's no threat, stop paying our salaries?

We have top men working on stealing all the money. All of it. Right now.
 
2012-09-12 10:00:31 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Except that the Iranians don't trust the UN, EU, or the West at all.


I didn't say they trust them, I am pointing out that their economy is hurting because of their refusal to deal with them.

Wicked Chinchilla: While they need nuclear power and could really use the trade right now neither of those protect them from invasion.


They don't need nuclear power, but being able to seel their oil would help their economy.

Wicked Chinchilla: Now, I must qualify this. I am not advocating for nuclear weapons. The world would be safer without them because the consequences of a war that makes use of such weapons are just too great. But one must be blind if you can't see why Iran would like to have one


There are multiple reasons they would want one. The question is if it is for security or to use against Israel.

I would argue they are more secure not being a threat as far as threat with only Russia and china willing to trade with them (and once they have a nuke, expect the russian stance to change). I also can't dsimiss all the religiously motivated talk from a theocracy.


Deneb81: They're not good men, but they're not unhinged


You belive they aren't despite their religion.
 
2012-09-12 10:01:32 AM  

Dadoody: US is also vulnerable to alien attack and mass driver orbital bombardment. We need to be taxed 100% to develop a national shield. Made of super thick bomb glass.


Simpsons did it!
 
2012-09-12 10:08:38 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: liam76: Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.

It goes way beyond religion. Remember, the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology is something that the hardline Islamists in power and the secular revolutionary movement are in full agreement on.


Wicked Chinchilla: Your post actually provides evidence to their more rational nature. An irrational actor does not care whether they will win or lose, they just want to cause harm or damage. By acknowledging that Iran has not moved because they have no chance of victory you mark them as in fact acting rationally (which is also my argument). I would also argue that if the destruction if Israel were their goal it would be a far cheaper, technologically simpler, and more concealable solution to restart their chemical or biological weapons programs. Its much easier to claim you are making pesticides than explaining away banks of high speed centrifuges


An irrational actor doesn't care if they win or lose by the standards you would consider rational. Not striking Israel yet doesn't prove they are rational.

It isn't possible for them to wipe out Israel with chemical or biological weapons. Nukes are another matter.

Wicked Chinchilla: However, I also believe their pure intentions have been corrupted by being in power for 30 years. I don't believe the Iranians will sacrifice their entire country, and the entirety of their power, just to hit Israel.


Wicked Chinchilla: We both get it, we just both have a different view of the ruling elite


I get I am not going to convince you onthis point, but you are basicially saying one of the majore figure of Shia leaderhip in the world doesn't really believe. That is a tough sell for me.

It i spretty easy to discuss it here, but if you were living in Israel I think it would be another story.
 
2012-09-12 10:14:09 AM  

liam76: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: liam76: Are you unfamiliar withthe UN, EU and bilateral sanctions against Iran? A secular power grab woudl take the offered nuclear power, and then use trade and their money from oil to bloster their power in the region.

It goes way beyond religion. Remember, the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology is something that the hardline Islamists in power and the secular revolutionary movement are in full agreement on.

Wicked Chinchilla: Your post actually provides evidence to their more rational nature. An irrational actor does not care whether they will win or lose, they just want to cause harm or damage. By acknowledging that Iran has not moved because they have no chance of victory you mark them as in fact acting rationally (which is also my argument). I would also argue that if the destruction if Israel were their goal it would be a far cheaper, technologically simpler, and more concealable solution to restart their chemical or biological weapons programs. Its much easier to claim you are making pesticides than explaining away banks of high speed centrifuges

An irrational actor doesn't care if they win or lose by the standards you would consider rational. Not striking Israel yet doesn't prove they are rational.

It isn't possible for them to wipe out Israel with chemical or biological weapons. Nukes are another matter.

Wicked Chinchilla: However, I also believe their pure intentions have been corrupted by being in power for 30 years. I don't believe the Iranians will sacrifice their entire country, and the entirety of their power, just to hit Israel.

Wicked Chinchilla: We both get it, we just both have a different view of the ruling elite

I get I am not going to convince you onthis point, but you are basicially saying one of the majore figure of Shia leaderhip in the world doesn't really believe. That is a tough sell for me.

It i spretty easy to discuss it here, but if you were living in Israel I think it would be another stor ...


I am not saying he doesn't believe. I am sure he does believe. I am also sure its a very useful belief to maintain his/their control over the country, and its a control they have grown quite fond of.

Its not belief vs. non-belief. Its more grey than that.

I agree though, its one thing to talk about it with an academic frame of mind and entirely another to be in the region and directly effected. This can lead to a better appreciation of the dangers, but can also lead to pollution of the debate with heightened fear.
 
2012-09-12 10:24:59 AM  
Pakistan has Agosta class submarines which are French diesel attack submarines capable of firing in close to the coast without being detected.
White flag included with purchase.
 
2012-09-12 10:28:19 AM  

Deep Contact: Pakistan has Agosta class submarines which are French diesel attack submarines capable of firing in close to the coast without being detected.
White flag included with purchase.


Firing a missile makes you instantly detectable. And dead.
And I'm sure the US Navy has no idea where that submarine is, right? No idea.
 
2012-09-12 10:59:42 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Deep Contact: Pakistan has Agosta class submarines which are French diesel attack submarines capable of firing in close to the coast without being detected.
White flag included with purchase.

Firing a missile makes you instantly detectable. And dead.
And I'm sure the US Navy has no idea where that submarine is, right? No idea.


They're off the coast of Pakistan looking for US missle subs waiting for the call to launch a first strike against Pakistans strategic inventory.
 
2012-09-12 11:07:08 AM  

crab66: Better shift the entire education budget to defense. Just in case.


I see you've captured the entire GOP spending plan for the next century in a single sentence. It's sadly accurate.

/we're not yet immune to other countries. spend more money!
 
2012-09-12 11:12:14 AM  
Cue Charles Krauhammer, Ralph Peters, et al rubbing their hands slowly back and forth across their loins.
 
2012-09-12 11:19:30 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Deep Contact: Pakistan has Agosta class submarines which are French diesel attack submarines capable of firing in close to the coast without being detected.
White flag included with purchase.

Firing a missile makes you instantly detectable. And dead.
And I'm sure the US Navy has no idea where that submarine is, right? No idea.


No, totally silent. Very dangerous.
 
2012-09-12 11:27:06 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: We have top men working on stealing all the money. All of it. Right now.


damn you, I was going to say that!

Also, the article makes it seem like we are just sitting ducks. I'm sure we will get a mole or two in to the program if we don't already have them there. Maybe even use our intel to pick up various comms...
 
2012-09-12 12:24:45 PM  
i.ytimg.com
 
2012-09-12 12:44:46 PM  
Want to protect your self from long range missle attacks? How about not pissing off the other side of the world.
 
2012-09-12 01:05:43 PM  

BigBooper: Mugato: From who exactly?

Right now? No one. Ten years from now? Who knows. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and it's only a matter of time until more and more countries have nuclear tipped long range ballistic missiles. To develop a system that can shoot down a limited attack makes sense to me. While it's not feasible to stop a large scale attack, it's not only feasible, but logical to build a system that can stop a couple of 1960's style missiles filed from North Korea, Iran, etc. The cost of a limited system like that would be far less than the damage one missile could cause to a U.S. city.


Who, you say?

www.flags.net
upload.wikimedia.org

Those are the only two nuclear-capable militaries on earth that are a direct threat to the United States. Luckily for us, however, the moment they launched, over 5,000 Nuclear Warheads of our own would be on the way. Mutually Assured Destruction is a powerful motivator.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report