[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Geez, I see the impossibility of the BMD system, and I'm probably one of the biggest hawks on this board.

Realistically there are 4 main nuclear threats.

1) Ballistic missiles - The big one carries the biggest payload, for example the SS-19 carries of to 6 Mirvs with a yield of 750 kilotons to 5 megaton city busting warheads. The best way to deal with these is to bust thier bunkers before they can launch, however for example, the Russians and the middle eastern nations have put a great deal of money and research into developing a mobile launch system which reduces the effectiveness of a pre-emptive strike. The missile defense shield is probably the best way to deal with this since a first strike without conditions is a international no-no. The problem is that these warheads decend at a tremendous rate, you don't have a lot of time to shoot them down, and atmospheric(sp?) and rolling might prevent a good shooting solution. A single warhead simple missile could be taken out, but a mirv'd system with multiple decoys and more then one missile might be impossible. Besides the BMD is not designed along the same line as star wars which is knocking down hundreds of missiles, its designed to counter a unsophisticated attack by early generation technology (single missile, single warhead)

2) FOBS - Orbital bombardment by using a warheads that orbit 150 km's up. No nation legally uses these thanks to SALT II, however there is no warning time with these weapons.

3) Submarine launched Nuclear Warheads. By creeping up onto the continental shelf of a nation and launching a depressed trajectory shot there is literally one minute of warning before the target is hit. The BMD is useless against this because of lack of warning and the fact that a cruise missile basically flys between buildings. a phalax missile defense system could probably deal with this, but the patriots performance was terrible against it in tests.

smuggled devices/improvised devices - There is no defense against this due to the massive influx of containers, luggage, mail into the continental U.S., the task of detecting this is next to impossible and economically undoable, this is the likely way that any kind of terrorist is going to nuke the U.S.

The BMD shield is suppossed to be one part of the U.S. homeland securities holy trinity, knock down a simple missile attack by a rogue nation, improve intelligence to snuff out the attack before it can be born. Secure the ports and borders to prevent a device from being smuggled in. Currently the U.S. has badly failed on all three.

Nice summation. Right on the money. The BMD shield/Star Wars/what ever the AMericans want to call it this week is a joke and nothing but a way of syphoning off billions of tax payer dollars and lining the pockets of the military complex.

Lanny, on another note, I've noticed that you tend to argue based on absolutes (Are you sure your not a Sith Lord ) Your arguement on the U.S. use of the nuclear warhead is a bit extreme. The correct understanding on the situation lies somewhere between the point that you are making and the point that others are making.

The Japanese had sent out feelers about a negotiated settlement, however thier demands were unreasonable and represented a position that the allies could not agree on.

Hence the comment about the government not being able to get their **** together. It was the internal failure of the Japanese to acknowledge the severity of the situation that dragged the war on, nothing more. The dropping of Little Boy was a kick in the balls to wake them up to the situation. The American military was also jonesing to use their new toy, so they made sure that the American government did not pursue negotiations too aggressively either. There was a documentary on the either the military or history channel that detailed the countdown to the dropping of the two bombs, and it focused on the politics of the situation and where the errors were made. The Japanese screwed up greatly, but the Americans did not encourage the Japanese to get a move on either. The Manhattan Project needed a proving ground and this was it.

The allies were prepared to go as far as invading the home islands of Japan as intelligence at that point indicated that the Japanese military was content with fighting down to the last man, woman and child.

Very true, but after the fire bombing of Tokyo the military was losing control of the war. The politicos were begining to take over. The military would have loved to have fought to the bitter end, but the people would not have stood for that. The emporer would not have stood for that.

Would the firebombing had ended this, not really, did the firebombings in Germany and the destruction of thier industrial centers end resistance in Germany, and force the surrender of the third reich, they actually had to continue to slog into Germany as the Russians did even though there was no reason for the Germans to keep fighting.

Good point, but allies also had to beat the Russians into Berlin. It was very evident that the Germans were toast and the last thing the war became was limiting the Soviet land grab. The Allies had to keep churning on to stop the Russians as well.

The first Nuclear bomb was neccessary to force reality onto the mililtary leaders in Japan and more importantly shock the Emporer into facing the reality of the situation. The second bomb was more of a warning against Stalin himself that the American's were capable of building multiple bombs and deploying them. You also have to realize that the Japanese were given a warning about the use of the second bomb well in advance of its use demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese people, but they chose to gamble that the American's didn't have a functional second bomb or would not use it. A long war changes the decision making process, this was the ultimate corner cutter to end the war and save American lives because a invasion against a fanatical military on thier home field would have been a meat grinder for soliders and civilians alike.

The first bomb was indeed a show of force. I don't think it needed to be used on a civilian center though. That was very calous IMO. They could have wiped out a small island instead, but that is hindsight. Destroying Nagasaki was just plain wrong. We both agree it was a warning to the Russians to back the hell off, but was it worth 125K people to make that show of force?

I used to be in the corner that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a requirement to end the war, but after seeing this documentary, and the evidence it presented (from both the American and Japanese side) it altered my view greatly. The politics of the day was something I was foggy on, but this cleared it up substantially. I'll have to see if I can find the title of it. It was very interesting and informative.