Well they got one

[UDawg]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html

[vampireuk]

*brushes under the carpet and talks about how evil christians are*

[oldsk00l]

and the filthy jews, bastards

they have no right to live, Allah be praised

[Darth Rancid]

Your responses to UDawg's post makes no sense at all :D

About this missile defence thing... You do konw that the reason many people are irritated by America's desciscion to develope these weapons is not that they think all americans deserve to be evaporated in nuclear explosions? The real reason for it is that America withdrew from a treaty it had signed. Thus declaring to the world that treaties are worthless if the nations that sign them are strong enough not to easily bullies around. During his time as president, Bush has now declared the UN meaningless, (he invaded Iraq contrary to UN's wishes), and he has made it ok to withdraw unilaterally from treaties that one feel no longer serve your purpose. Since America does these things, why shouldn't other strong nations do so?

Though.. I suppose most of you here will probably say that declaring the UN meaningless was a good thing... :D

[oldsk00l]

I look at it as the logical step in response to nuclear proliferation. Incoming missile? Shoot it down, can't stop all the crazies, then we don't have to deal with the whole fuss of destroying the world in retaliation.

The UN is meaningless though, and that is no one's opinion, it's a fact that's plain as day. I'd really like to see someone try and argue otherwise. The treaties we were under before, however, were obsolete and no longer applicable. I praise Bush for his initiative. Better to try and do something that stand by idly.

[sytaylor]

The UN is meaningless though, and that is no one's opinion, it's a fact that's plain as day.

I've heard some stuff in my time, but that the UN being useless is fact? By what measurement? For something to be useless it has to have no use, and do nothing. I find it funny that nobody mentions how much Bush wants to keep a strong Nato (more willing for affirmative action), but the UN is teh evil! If the UN goes then what replaces it? We cannot have such a catastrophic break down of international dialogue, it would be disaterous.

So in response, you rule the world, you just disbanded the UN... now what? An imperfect entity is better than no entity.

[retsam]

hay wait... let me turn on the news..... cbs... not a word ..... abc again not a word, cnn oh wait what was that that i cought a 3 second glimps of.... hmmmm

[oldsk00l]

hay wait... let me turn on the news..... cbs... not a word ..... abc again not a word, cnn oh wait what was that that i cought a 3 second glimps of.... hmmmm

Yeah, but man they sure mention it when there's a failure.

[oldsk00l]

I've heard some stuff in my time, but that the UN being useless is fact? By what measurement? For something to be useless it has to have no use, and do nothing. I find it funny that nobody mentions how much Bush wants to keep a strong Nato (more willing for affirmative action), but the UN is teh evil! If the UN goes then what replaces it? We cannot have such a catastrophic break down of international dialogue, it would be disaterous.

So in response, you rule the world, you just disbanded the UN... now what? An imperfect entity is better than no entity.

Well you're right, it does have a use. It was founded for a purpose, unfortunately it just hasn't fulfilled any of its charter...or accomplished anything toward actual diplomacy.

To say it would be a disaster to disband the UN is the joke. All it would do is help fight terrorism. So yeah, I guess it would be a disaster for all the hostile muslims.

[Raptorman]

The UN is absolutely a complete joke. This I agree with whole heartedly.

Congrats to the Navy for the success of the Aegis Missile Defense System.

[UDawg]

Your responses to UDawg's post makes no sense at all :D

And you expected sometbing meaning full from taint sweat?

The real reason for it is that America withdrew from a treaty it had signed. Thus declaring to the world that treaties are worthless if the nations that sign them are strong enough not to easily bullies around. During his time as president, Bush has now declared the UN meaningless, (he invaded Iraq contrary to UN's wishes), and he has made it ok to withdraw unilaterally from treaties that one feel no longer serve your purpose. Since America does these things, why shouldn't other strong nations do so?
We withdrew from those treats because of the simple fact that the country we had them with doesn't exist any more. So the treaty is useless.

The reason why they don't want this to work (it will work btw) is because they don't want us to be strong, the leader in the world and they are affraid of every damn thing and a show of strenght threatens them because they are affraid to face the wolves in this world.

The UN is useless because it is corrupt. It also votes against the US almost all the time.

[netviper13]

Never send the Airforce to do a Navy job...it doesn't surprise me that this test worked - those Aegis cruisers are some sweet little things.

The navy system does have an advantage though in that it would generally be shooting at a missile while it's on its ascent, whereas the ground-based system is shooting at them after they re-enter the atmosphere.

[oldsk00l]

The reason why they don't want this to work (it will work btw) is because they don't want us to be strong, the leader in the world and they are affraid of every damn thing and a show of strenght threatens them because they are affraid to face the wolves in this world.

What also sucks is how they try and look victimized by being weak while we're so strong. Then some in our populance buy into it. This whole "let's help them get the upper hand" over us mindset just pisses me off.

I LOVED what Reagan did, even though it didn't pan out at least he had the balls to thoroughly push for something as much as he could.

[sytaylor]

Well you're right, it does have a use. It was founded for a purpose, unfortunately it just hasn't fulfilled any of its charter...or accomplished anything toward actual diplomacy.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for that pesky thing called history. It has achieved plenty, mostly softly softly "liberal" type stuff, but still plenty.

[UDawg]

What also sucks is how they try and look victimized by being weak while we're so strong. Then some in our populance buy into it. This whole "let's help them get the upper hand" over us mindset just pisses me off.

I LOVED what Reagan did, even though it didn't pan out at least he had the balls to thoroughly push for something as much as he could.
I know some of you are pretty young here but I remember when Reagan put the persian missles in Germany. OMG! and you guys thought the left hatted Bush today. It was worse back then but pretty close today.

[r2d2d3d4d5]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html

Would you guys really trust this system to work 100% of the time? After all, it would only take one missile to cause mass devastation.

How long before the other guy feels the need to invent his own system because of the power discrepancy? In which case you end up in another military build-up race? I bet there are people already working on ways to get round the system.

I guess if your average terrorist decides to use a missile delivery system then it will probably be affective against it. But most commentators I've heard talk about this things have said that if an attack of this kind does occur it's more likely to come from a land based device (less dependency on technology/no need for a launch site/less expensive/more accuracy).

Anyway I guess this is a good way to spend a tone of money on military equipment/infrastructure and at the same time tell everyone you’re doing something about terrorism.

[Darth Rancid]

UDawg, yes.. I know the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.... :D

But apparently Russia seemed to think it inherited all the documents that the USSR signed along with its nuclear arsenal.. and now that you have broken that ABM treaty, you have forced Putin to make a bunch of ridiculus claims about sci-fi weapons being developed by his country.. :)

Concerning the uses of the UN, I have to agree with sytaylor.

And.. finally.. about those amazing AEGIS cruisers... back in the mid-90s, one of those visited my country, and there was quite alot of media coverage, and the commander of our navy commented, rather enviously, that it was an amazing ship, and that the price of building one was higher than what it costs to run our entire navy fore one year. :) ... they're expensive...

I won't be discussing missile defences or the UN anymore tonight, since I am in the process of getting drunk. :D

[oldsk00l]

Would you guys really trust this system to work 100% of the time? After all, it would only take one missile to cause mass devastation.
Better than nothing.

How long before the other guy feels the need to invent his own system because of the power discrepancy? In which case you end up in another military build-up race? I bet there are people already working on ways to get round the system.
That's why it's a continued investment. You want freedom? It costs, ALLOT, and it's not about money either but determination and vigil.

I guess if your average terrorist decides to use a missile delivery system then it will probably be affective against it. But most commentators I've heard talk about this things have said that if an attack of this kind does occur it's more likely to come from a land based device (less dependency on technology/no need for a launch site/less expensive/more accuracy).
Again, better than nothing. Once we learn about this sort of thing and deploy it, we can take that and adapt it. We're NEVER *safe*, but we can be *SAFER*. That's the objective. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater because we aren't on track for developing a %100 infallible system is nonsense. It's like scrapping ALL cars because they are deadly, which is true. We just do the best we can, like we do in all things.

Anyway I guess this is a good way to spend a tone of money on military equipment/infrastructure and at the same time tell everyone you’re doing something about terrorism.
Considering that N Korea is out there saying they are weaponizing nuclear material, and the fact they can guide it with commodity computing hardware, and considering they are a rogue terrorist state....yeah it does do something about terrorism. In fact, it does quite a bit for terrorism in that we'll likely be deterring a nuclear attack from one of our allies before we deter one from the mainland.

Don't even get me started why we SHOULDN'T EVER consider deploying this anywhere but our mainland because of our crappy "allies". The UK and Italy are about the only deserving countries that come to mind. It's just unfortunate that infrastructure setup to protect them won't defer the missile to annihilate the other countries.

[r2d2d3d4d5]

IMO it creates a false sense of security, takes money away from other projects that would have more obvious results and at worst could trigger another arms race. OK, today, probably, no one can/would-want-to compete with the American Military machine but things always change and if other nations felt that the balance of power had shifted too far in favour of America especially to a irrevocable point they may be forced to create their own projects. A US that can attack anyone without fear of retribution is something that China/Russia/theEU would be very wary of.

[oldsk00l]

IMO it creates a false sense of security, takes money away from other projects that would have more obvious results and at worst could trigger another arms race. OK, today, probably, no one can/would-want-to compete with the American Military machine but things always change and if other nations felt that the balance of power had shifted too far in favour of America especially to a irrevocable point they may be forced to create their own projects. A US that can attack anyone without fear of retribution is something that China/Russia/theEU would be very wary of.

Well, that's just a difference of opinion. I could care less about how they feel about us being able to attack a nation without retribution. I'm more concerned about our security than theirs, if they don't like it, they had better not trifle w/us. I feel it's a necessity. If they don't like it, they can make their own.