did they manage to intercept anything better than 'star wars' stuff?

it was in operation for 1 day

This system was meant to intercept ballistic missiles after reentry, when all of the decoys would have burned up. It was supposed to carry a warhead that would ruin the fissile material in the incoming warhead with neutron flux. It became illegal after we signed an agreement basically saying that parties to the agreement wouldn't work on nuclear defense, basically preserving the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction, thus keeping first strikes tactically unpalatable.

Wikipedia, people.

Also, it's pretty fucking cool.

Yeah, I love how we were allowed to make weapons that could blow up half the planet, but defense systems that could protect us against doomsday missiles, oh no, THOSE were evil.

because idiots like you would then be tempted to use nukes in a war, thinking you have a perfect defense.

Pro gun, anti-MAD.

This is the grasp on reality that gun nuts have.

it's not lack of understanding of reality.

it's tiny dick syndrome.

Only >I< can be trusted with a gun (keep them away from the blacks)

Only >my< country should get to have the threat of nuclear annihilation (keep it away from the commies, chinks and ayrabs)

Or, you know, Russia could have made anti-nuclear defense systems, too.

Given the choice between A) an arms race whereby each side makes bigger and bigger and bigger bombs, until any single one can destroy two adjacent time-zones, or B) an arms race in which each side one-ups each other with faster anti-missile systems, I ask you this, SolRo and Nominal, which one would YOU pick?


And SolRo, why are you against gun rights for blacks?!

Look, if you guys love MAD so much, and apparently you do, let's put it this way: letting the working class own and operate their own weaponry is basically the civil version of MAD. Consider the Black Panthers (remember: they were one of the most vocal defenders of the Second Amendment, at a time when even the NRA was trying to disarm American society). You let the Black Panthers own assault rifles, and then the cops won't be tempted to use their weapons on black people. You take away the people's guns - you **remove the threat of mutually assured destruction** - and suddenly the state authorities are allowed to do whatever they want, murder whomever they please. This is not a new idea; the right of the have-nots to arm themselves has always been one of the bedrocks of liberal thought, and it exist for the explicit purpose of allowing the people to defend themselves against tyranny, if and when the need should arise.

Now *ideally*, we would want to keep the scale of this arms race down to a minimum - in my opinion, the state and the people should each have a moderate amount of force at their disposal, and, if given the choice between bigger guns for each side (a bilateral escalation of force), or better body armor (a bilateral de-escalation of force), then clearly, body armor would be preferable. As I have suggested in previous comments, perhaps the national-security complex can meet our current gun-control laws (don't forget, we DO have gun-control laws in this country; quite a lot of them, and I daresay they're quite ones reasonable, too) at a halfway point? The authorities could do this by slashing their law-enforcement budgets in half, doing away with SWAT teams, and ending the criminalization of any and all voluntary, non-violent activities. That would be a good compromise, one which respects current gun-control laws and does not involve the threat of mutual annihilation! This proposal of mine would, in essence, be the "Star Wars" solution; or even better, the hippie anti-nuclear one.

But whatever we do here, one way or another, *** balance must be maintained between the amount of coercion each side is able to wield. *** Upset that balance - for example, by demanding a unilateral disarmament treaty (a "gun ban") - and it'll lead to disaster. It cannot help BUT to, for the very same reason why the old Cold Warriors felt MAD was necessary!



__ I put it to you that one cannot be both pro-MAD and anti-gun. __


Every other combination of positions can work, but anyone who buys into the Cold War era apologitprop of the MAD doctrine, CANNOT then rationally accept the argument that our civil rights need to be further curtailed in the name of fear and promises of security. In fact, I'd go one step further, and say that anyone who is pro-MAD, MUST, if they wish to be intellectually honest, demand an immediate relaxation of arms control laws in this country, up to and including allowing private citizens to own and operate Abrams tanks. If you do NOT accept this, then it is on you to either recant your views about MAD, or to explain why, in your opinion, the freedom of the working class cannot be extended the same basic courtesies as Doomsday Itself.