Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

If Iraq was to suddenly announce to the world that it was building an early warning missile defense shield to protect itself from attack what would the world say? Would the world and the UN order them to stop?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: Tyler, Tx.
Posts: 252

depends...if they were using long range tactical nukes in this "defense" system, I am sure we would stop them.


I imagine we would try to stop them no matter what they were using..though I dont know what limits and rules we have imposed on IRAQ since the gulf war.

It would be tricky though too...cause we wouldn't want them to actually build something that they would use to attack other nations, or at least, if they ATTEMPT to attack other nations, they wouldn't be to hard to stop....

So asking if we would stop them, I would say that I wouldn't be suprised if we did, if asking should we, well that's a harder question.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by rage
It would be tricky though too...cause we wouldn't want them to actually build something that they would use to attack other nations.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location:
Posts: 5131

A large catapult that slings Camel's, Kurd's, and Kuwaiti's in the air is hardly a "early warning missile defense shield".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: Tyler, Tx.
Posts: 252

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


ok, so we would try to stop them on the basis of our fear that they may use a defense device for attack instead. So our distrust of them would likely be the guiding force. Our distrust about their true intentions for the shield, yes?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by rage
well...I know you are trying to get at something, so I am delaying as long as possible, but, yes, I think it would.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

No.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
No.

---

smart guy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Land of Entrapment
Posts: 660

So okay you are making comment on the US backing out of the shield treaty..

In a perfect world, your comments would make more sense.. In this world people realize that the US would not make first strike against another country in that type of warfare(No matter what the movies say) but we are a target for "unprovoked", terrorist attacks like that. We join lots of fights but havn't started a fight of our own since the civil war( I think )... Let one of these countries actually declare war on us instead of the crap they normally do and that might be different. (yea I know it's just the patriot-nationalist part of me talking.)

I'm not saying that anyone who wants to shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves, if they want a "shield" then build one.

If it is a defensive system, I say lets pass em out to all the countries of the world. If it's offensive then it will be the first thing we destroy when we feel like attacking you. So it's not really a big deal since it would be neutralized anyway.

I actually don't agree with the whole "shield" theory. And that is what it is, just a theory at this point. I think the money would be better spent upgrading other type of security and monitoring equipment in the US and it's protectorates or hell feed the homeless...

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: St.louis MO.
Posts: 245

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranium Fornication
So okay you are making comment on the US backing out of the shield treaty..

In a perfect world, your comments would make more sense.. In this world people realize that the US would not make first strike against another country in that type of warfare(No matter what the movies say) but we are a target for "unprovoked", terrorist attacks like that. We join lots of fights but havn't started a fight of our own since the civil war( I think )... Let one of these countries actually declare war on us instead of the crap they normally do and that might be different. (yea I know it's just the patriot-nationalist part of me talking.)

I'm not saying that anyone who wants to shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves, if they want a "shield" then build one.

If it is a defensive system, I say lets pass em out to all the countries of the world. If it's offensive then it will be the first thing we destroy when we feel like attacking you. So it's not really a big deal since it would be neutralized anyway.

I actually don't agree with the whole "shield" theory. And that is what it is, just a theory at this point. I think the money would be better spent upgrading other type of security and monitoring equipment in the US and it's protectorates or hell feed the homeless...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 82

I think we'd stop them. I also think that if iraq was a target to anyone other than ourselves, we'd probably make some token protection gesture so we looked good about telling them they can't do it themselves.

As for this being a thread hinting about the US Missile Defense System... Got I hope not. you're looking at a VERY different situation here. And if the russians had been willing to give a little, and renegotiate the treaty, we wouldn't be withdrawing from the treaty altogether, and there would be no threat of another arms gap, because we (and russia) would still be prohibited from trying to build missiles that coud penetrate the defense system.

The whole point of including a missile defense system in the ABM treaty was for just that reason. They wanted to slow the arms race. If nobody builds new defense, nobody needs to build new offensive measures to counter that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 424

quote:

---

Originally posted by rage
depends...if they were using long range tactical nukes in this "defense" system, I am sure we would stop them.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: The State of Dismay
Posts: 82

Well I think this brings to light another topic.

UN observers should be sent to all countries suspected of creating biological and or chemical agents. They should be sent to Iraq, and should be sent on over here to the good ole USA. We're guilty of that, and shouldnt be doing it.

The difference is iraq has relatively recently invaded another nation with the intent being to take it over. They've recently made unprovoked attacks. As a result its a threat to international security... especially mid-east stability.

The USA has not made unprovoked attacks that were not intended to bring humanitarian relief (as a primary or secondary objective) or at least requested. I'm not making a statement of the relative success of our operations, but they were not provoked.

Iraq continues to play on the stupidity of the UN. They deny the UN's requests to inspect sites that are thought to be producing weapons of mass destruction.


On a second note, despite the US withdrawl from the ABM treaty, Russia and the US have also agreed to lower their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

and here's a little point of emphasis id like to point out:

Mutual Assured Destruction is a thing of the past. We ALL need to look foward and think of ways of protection that do not involve the complete annhiliation of the planet based on the actions of two nations. MAD is irresponsible and the most inhumane method of protection possible. All civilized nations should come together to create a global shield to protect everyone. While the proposed shield may not be the answer, it's better than assured destruction, of any kind. Yes, it was irresponsible for the US to simply drop out, but it needed to be done. If Russia wouldnt let us renegotiate the treaty, it had to go.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16811

"Would the world and the UN order them to stop?"

I would certainly think so since we don’t even let them fly planes over half of their own country due to the recent past actions and present actions of the government there.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

i don't mean to divert the original topic, and i hope i'm not fucking up the point here, but what if it were any other country? what if it was egypt or russia or some other semi-ambiguous nation? would there be the same opposition?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16811

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
i but what if it were any other country? what if it was egypt or russia or some other semi-ambiguous nation? would there be the same opposition?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: The State of Dismay
Posts: 82

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia


I wouldn’t think so if it was a stable government with respect for human rights.

Who knows though? Logically I would think after the Missile Def is done it is going to be shared with our allies, I have nothing to back that up its purely speculation.
But you know we would be there cleaning up a mess if anything ever went down, along with others, so why not just avoid it? The U.S. has interest in a more stable world; humanity has interests in a more stable world.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16811

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyslexic Tangent

it also has an interest in continuation of an unstable mideast.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 82

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyslexic Tangent
Agreed on all points, however while the US has an interest in a more stable world, it also has an interest in continuation of an unstable mideast.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by coffeeman
iraq tried to invade another country. that destabilized things, we blew tham back inside their borders. thus making the mideast more stable.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1606

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
If Iraq was to suddenly announce to the world that it was building an early warning missile defense shield to protect itself from attack what would the world say? Would the world and the UN order them to stop?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 82

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


Thy did'nt just try they did invade. Although the reason that is often missed out is that Kuwait were refusing to pay an alleged promise debt to Saddam so he took the payment of the debt by force in oil.



I think you will find that the US is being very limited in the 'helping to build a government/nation' part. It has been the Bush Admin that has been sticking point on allowing ground troops in.

On top of that Afghanistan is [b]not in the Middle East. Just as Switzerland is not in the Czech Republic.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged