[UnderToe]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sorry, but anyone opposed to missile defense has their head up their butt.

I ask, what is wrong with shooting down an incoming nuclear missile and saving possibly millions of lives?

One of the main arguments against missile defense: in the twisted logic of nuclear deterrance, a system that could stop a nuclear missile will have a destabilizing effect. That was the whole point of the ABM treaty:

ABM treaty

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And you realize that a nuclear war WILL result from such a thing while if a missile is intercepted that interception will prevent a nuclear war.

Pacifists never make sense. You say you oppose war but then you oppose the means to prevent a war. Idiots.

Your reasoning here is quite simplistic. I'm not saying that nuclear deterrance makes a whole lot of sense, but it has worked for 60 years. BMD will fundamentally change the equation, and who knows what will happen then.

[Canadian_Mind]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Fire prevention: It's still a bad idea

Crime prevention: It's still a bad idea

Flood prevention: It's still a bad idea

Severe weather preparedness: It's still a bad idea

Air traffic control: It's still a bad idea



Sorry, but anyone opposed to missile defense has their head up their butt.

I ask, what is wrong with shooting down an incoming nuclear missile and saving possibly millions of lives?

If North Korea shoots a missile at Seattle you're saying you don't want anyone to have the capability to stop it?

And you realize that a nuclear war WILL result from such a thing while if a missile is intercepted that interception will prevent a nuclear war.

Pacifists never make sense. You say you oppose war but then you oppose the means to prevent a war. Idiots.

not neccisarily. i think intercepting a missle is a great idea. But i don't want to waste millions of dollars on a system that doesn't work. until the US developes a system that works, i won't support them trying to put missles on canadfian soil to inercept them.