US Missile defense.

[palindrome]

With all the news articles on US missile defense. I have been reading a few articles, and one article in particular caught my attention. This article was on the bbc and had this image attached.

Is there really a missile defense station planned for somewhere around Boston? If so, where abouts would it go?


article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6737207.stm :?:

 

[Lurker]

Radar installation, makes sense given the hub North Atlantic defense communications and coordination used to run through this area with an overlap in Greenland/Iceland. I'm surprised there isn't a planned station in the vicinity of Florida or Texas.

South Korea, Japan, and Australia will eventually be covered in the Pacific.

When Putin gets over the nationalistic saber rattling for 'street credibility' I'm sure there will be a system based around Turkey, Israel, and the central Asian republics.

Chile, Columbia, Argentina, and Brazil will probably throw in for some sort of system as well.

This type of system is worthless against a full scale war but I think it's a good idea to take a threat card away from a rogue state's table. For instance if such a system existed covering South Korea, along with the deployment of several of the new AEGIS based anti-artillery systems (C-RAMS) http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/mortarzapping_g.html North Korea couldn't blackmail South Korea, Japan, China, and the US to give them aid.

 

[Ron Newman]

This is 100% wasteful of taxpayer money. It should instead be spent on improving our schools, our transportation system, and many other things.

 

[Lurker]

All those things are fine and dandy until a thermonuclear warhead ruins your day. Politically and militarily it is worth the money to not have to deal with being held ransom by every 3rd world nut-job that figures 60 year old technology. A viable defense that makes having limited nuclear capability fairly useless would remove the incentive from developing such a capability. This would eliminate the need for preemptive military action in most cases, unless someone figures out MIRVs, in which case it's been nice posting.

/speaking as someone who used to have something to do with the lots of nasty things pointed at people outside of the USSR.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

All those things are fine and dandy until a thermonuclear warhead ruins your day. Politically and militarily it is worth the money to not have to deal with being held ransom by every 3rd world nut-job that figures 60 year old technology. A viable defense that makes having limited nuclear capability fairly useless would remove the incentive from developing such a capability. This would eliminate the need for preemptive military action in most cases, unless someone figures out MIRVs, in which case it's been nice posting.

Oh come on. People like Ron won't be affected by nuclear warfare. They'll be too busy sending their kids to the best schools in the world and driving around on streets paved in gold!

While we're at it, the U.S. should just go the route of the Swiss. Disarm the miliatary and spend all that money getting rid of the homeless, planting trees, and handing out flowers to people on the street.

If Ron ran the country, the best way to deal with a nuclear warhead coming at America would be to duck under your desk, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye.

 

[Lurker]

Switzerland is actually a very heavily armed country per capita

 

[LeTaureau]

This idea is a vast waste of money and doesn't make me feel any more secure. Ron is right, the money is better spent on things that make a difference like education, healthcare and infrastructure.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

now i remember why i left...

defense (not soldiers, not tanks, not planes, but a system SPECIFICALLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY marked for defense) is now considered to be a bad thing by liberals?

what is the world coming to?