Rude awakening to missile-defense dream

[J-10]

Rude awakening to missile-defense dream
January 04, 2005
By Scott Ritter

DELMAR, N.Y. – On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament.

From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities.

Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts.

The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program.

The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched.

After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000.

When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere.

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.

The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.

• Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and Iraq (1991-1998). He is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.html

[Freibier]

Interesting article, thanks :)

[fantassin]

Very interesting; looks like on the nuclear side of the house, balance is still the order of the day.

And GWB's program is not going to be helped by that...




Test Failure Sets Back U.S. Missile Defense Plan


Wed Dec 15, 3:51 PM ET

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (*******) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s drive to deploy a multibillion-dollar shield against ballistic missiles was set back on Wednesday by what critics called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two years.

The abortive $85 million exercise raised fresh questions about the reliability of the first elements of the plan, an heir to former president Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) vision of a space-based missile defense that critics dubbed "Star Wars."

The interceptor missile never left its silo at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific, shutting itself down automatically because of an "anomaly" of unknown origin, the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Missile Defense Agency said.

About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile had been fired from Kodiak, Alaska, in what was to have been a fly-by test chiefly designed to gather data on new hardware, software and engagement angles, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman.



The Pentagon plans to spend more than $50 billion over the next five years on all aspects of missile defense, aiming to weave in airborne, ship- and space-based assets. The system that failed on Wednesday is know as the ground-based midcourse system. By some accounts, the Pentagon has already spent $130 billion on its missile defense efforts.

Despite widespread doubts among physicists about the technical readiness of the system, Bush had sought to have a rudimentary capability against North Korean missiles on alert by the end of this month.

"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world - you fire, we're going to shoot it down," he said at a campaign stop in Ridley, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 17.

But all eight of the system's intercept tests, the last of which failed in December 2002, have fallen far short of replicating realistic war scenarios, experts inside and outside the government have said. Of the total, five have succeeded in highly scripted conditions, never at night or in severe weather.

Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under former president Bill Clinton (news - web sites), described as wrong-headed any decision to declare the so-called ground-based midcourse system operational, or GMD, operational at this stage after Wednesday's failure.

"Premature declaration of operational status could mislead the Congress and U.S. taxpayers that they are being protected by the GMD system, when they are not," he said in an e-mail.

To develop the system, the Missile Defense Agency has planned 20 or 30 more flight intercept tests, each different from the next, before it will be ready for "realistic operational testing," Coyle said.

"If these 20 or 30 tests each take two years, like the latest test, it could be 50 years before the GMD system will be ready" for deployment," he said. "And this assumes they all succeed. If some fail, as this latest test did, it could take even longer," Coyle added.

"The more one thinks about the test, the more incredible it is that it failed," said Wade Boese, research director of the Arms Control Association, a private Washington-based group that favors reduced spending on the project.

"The Pentagon had two years essentially to prepare ... and publicly described it in a way to guard against any chance that it could be deemed a failure," he said.

Unlike the botched mission early Wednesday, the last full flight test had as its chief goal to shoot down its target. It misfired on Dec. 11, 2002, when the warhead -- a "kill vehicle" meant to obliterate a mock warhead by slamming into it -- failed to separate from its booster rocket.



Neither the Missile Defense Agency nor the Pentagon responded immediately to questions about the failure's impact on the deployment timetable.

Boeing Co., the Pentagon's prime contractor on the project, also declined comment.

The Pentagon has already suggested its schedule is slipping.

"I'm not constrained by timing, exactly," Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, said on Dec. 8 in reply to a question about switching the system on. "But we'll see how (the test) goes and then we'll see from there."

[Bluezoo]

I have serious doubts on the objectivity of these two articles. First, they came from partial or polluted sources. Two, failures are bound to happen. The Russians had a litany of failures in their space and military programs which are still being declassified to this day. Heck, even the French had series of failures from their Ariane programs and their much reputed Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. ;) The Americans are no different. So what if the rocket failed. It is public knowledge that the development of these systems take time. Three, the Russians just raised the stakes. The Americans will probably just develop some thing new to counter this new ICBM. And it gives the politicians in Washington more reasons why this Missile Defense Plan should continue. Now, whether or not the expenditure in this missile defense program is just a waste of money or not remains to be seen. But its America’s money and let them decide.

The Americans are fond of saying that it is better to have it and not need it than not have it when you need it most. Personally, I think it is just a question of "when" the Americans succeed in developing this missile defense system. When that time comes, what will the rest of the of the world do to get this technology? Rely on treaties or diplomacy?

[fantassin]

Ariane is not French, it's european.

"Arianespace is backed by shareholders that represent the best technical, financial and political resources of the 12 European countries participating in the Ariane program"

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Scott Ritter. Feh. His credibility has long since gone by the wayside.

The anti-missile system is not, and never has been designed to counter an attack from an existing nuclear power such as Russia, China etc. It's only designed to counter an attack from an emerging power such as North Korea, Iran etc. The article mentions this only in passing;


or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere

That's the entire crux of the issue. The Russians can go ahead and throw money and resources at a system that's already no match for their missiles, if they want to (hey, corporate welfare works on both sides of the ocean). As for the Americans spending so much on a system with such limited capabilities (even when fully operational) - one nuke tossed over by North Korea could have devastating consequences, and it's too serious a threat to ignore, and the billions spent are not thrown into a toilet - they advance technology, and pay salaries. There's that corporate welfare again.

[Bluezoo]

Ariane is not French, it's european.

"Arianespace is backed by shareholders that represent the best technical, financial and political resources of the 12 European countries participating in the Ariane program"

Whatever. The point is, despite its claim that it is staffed by geniuses, it is NOT immune to failures in its programs. Even bright people have their share of failures, unless they are too proud to acknowledge this fact? :roll:

On your claim that it is backed by shareholders that represent the best technical, financial and political resources of the 12 European countries participating in the Ariane program, well...its is their disputable claim which remains to be seen.

As the saying goes, CAVEAT EMPTOUR!--actually, the rest of other EU nations have minor stakes. The French have 57.70 % stock ownership followed by the Germans which have 18.43% share--in no uncertain terms, it means that it is still a French owned and controlled company. ;)

http://www.arianespace.com/site/about/shareholders_sub_index.html

[ElHombre]

they've had twenty years to get this damn thing to work. they cheat on the tests and it still doesn't work. and yet it won't do a damn thing about the proven[/i[ threat. even if it had been working perfectly, on 9/11 it would have just sat there and watched the planes hit their targets.

[i]that's the real threat posed by rogue nations. and this 'shield' can't do a thing about it.

if NK or anyone else wants to throw a missle our way, we tell them we'll return the favor in kind times twenty.


hey, corporate welfare works on both sides of the ocean.

is that supposed to be an arguement in favor of keeping it?

[Goldfinger]

Another thing to consider is that the current missile defense system being developed now would be able to intercept most of the current ICBMs possessed by Russia. Russia has to make many SS-27s to match the nuclear deterrent of the US. IMO, China is more of a threat than Russia and IIRC China only has a few ICBMs that in their current form would be intercepted. And considering most of the nuclear weapons proliferation gets traced back to China one way or another, China deserves to be missile defense blockaded.

I'd like it if countries had only missile defense shields and then make large-scale nuclear weapons illegal.

[BlackRain]

Scott Ritter, the author of this story, is a discredited criminal who was involved in *** crimes with 14 and 16-year-old minors.

This sad man also claimed this before the War in Iraq


The US does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The US is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the US in this war is inevitable," he said.

[SOG]

i think we should just dump the project unless its a black program made to soak money and redispense it in other areas. in deterent to other nations is nuclear armegeddon, and the missle defense system wont be able to stop a back packer with a briefcase nuke or a offshore nuke in a harbor boat so its usless against terrorism. im starting to have suspiciions that a failed program this long recieving government support is more than what it seems. its like a running joke, but with that much money being dumped into it you begin to wonder.

[Nizark]

Did the US ever have land mobile ICBM's?

[moughoun]

Ariane is not French, it's european.

"Arianespace is backed by shareholders that represent the best technical, financial and political resources of the 12 European countries participating in the Ariane program"

Whatever. The point is, despite its claim that it is staffed by geniuses, it is NOT immune to failures in its programs. Even bright people have their share of failures, unless they are too proud to acknowledge this fact? :roll:

On your claim that it is backed by shareholders that represent the best technical, financial and political resources of the 12 European countries participating in the Ariane program, well...its is their disputable claim which remains to be seen.

As the saying goes, CAVEAT EMPTOUR!--actually, the rest of other EU nations have minor stakes. The French have 57.70 % stock ownership followed by the Germans which have 18.43% share--in no uncertain terms, it means that it is still a French owned and controlled company. ;)

http://www.arianespace.com/site/about/shareholders_sub_index.html
he never said geniuses, they are rocket scientist though p-)

[dava]

The US does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The US is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the US in this war is inevitable," he said.


He is not that far off.
How many more deaths and billions need to be spend in iraq before the US+UK will indeed withdraw from iraq?

As long as the other western powers wont contribute to the peacekeeping-process, there will be no hope in iraq.

[BlackRain]

The US does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The US is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the US in this war is inevitable," he said.


He is not that far off.
How many more deaths and billions need to be spend in iraq before the US+UK will indeed withdraw from iraq?

As long as the other western powers wont contribute to the peacekeeping-process, there will be no hope in iraq.

In your dreams.

[Kilgor]

Scott Ritter, now there is someone without a political case . :roll:

[b33f]

The US does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The US is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the US in this war is inevitable," he said.


He is not that far off.
How many more deaths and billions need to be spend in iraq before the US+UK will indeed withdraw from iraq?

As long as the other western powers wont contribute to the peacekeeping-process, there will be no hope in iraq.

Altough i am sure that with more time and after democratic elections in Iraq, the whole situtation will turn good in US/UK's favor (and therefore in the favor of the Iraqi ppl).

That meaning that the situation in Iraq will stabilize, insurgency wiped out and a once-POS country (Iraq) on it's way to a brighter, BETTER future!


But you put it right on whom to blame: those european, western countries failing to provide support!

[dava]

oh oh, i didnt say that.
It is their choice not to contribute and you should respect their decision.

You shouldnt have started a war if you cant handle it.
And beating down on the EU won't help your chances to get some cooperation.

Its mostly in the attitude i guess, if rummy and his lackeys woulndt be so damn arrogant against the european countries, things would be brighter.

So whats to blame? US failing foreign politics.

[martinexsquaddie]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states

[Trigger]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states
Wake up man!

In August 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepo Dong 1 system, which it characterized as a space launch vehicle (SLV) attempting to orbit a small satellite. The launch demonstrated several of the key technologies required to develop an ICBM, including stage separation. The existence of a third stage itself was an unanticipated development in the North Korean ballistic missile program. With the Taepo Dong 1, North Korea has now demonstrated the capability to reach the entire territory of South Korea and Japan, as well as large portions of China and Russia. Potentially, a three-stage Taepo Dong 1 SLV could deliver a light payload to the United States, although with very poor accuracy.

North Korea is developing the Taepo Dong 2 (ICBM), which could deliver a several-hundred kilogram pay-load to Alaska or Hawaii, and a lighter payload to the western half of the United States.
from (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Northkorea/TaepoDong.shtml)


Quoting “western intelligence sources,” worldtribune.com reports that North Korea has begun to offer its long-range Taepo-Dong II for sale to several middle eastern nations.
********The news comes just days after other reports that North Korea is building new missile bases, developing new missiles, has “at least” eight nuclear weapons, and, ironically enough, that Kim Jong Il pledged to the United States that he would not transfer ballistic missiles to terrorists. The sale of missiles is, however, North Korea’s primary source of revenue.
********Likely buyers include another rogue state and state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, which has apparently been negotiating a purchase with Pyongyang. Worldtribune’s source says that 2003 negotiations for the purchase of the Taepo-Dong by Syria and Libya apparently were not pursued, but that Iran was considering the Taepo-Dong as a possible basis for the its ICBM program, the Shahab-5, the development of the engines for which China is also named as an aid.
********Depending on the version of the Taepo-Dong II, the intercontinental missile has a range of 6000km or more. The three stage version of the missile has a range capable of striking the continental United States.
from (http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200405051029.html)

[Clarsachier]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

[BlackRain]

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

There is a political reason why are leftist in our country don't want the missile program. They do not want the USA to have any military edge.

They feel that having an enemy acts as counter balance to a rogue US government bent on restricting individual liberties and raping the environment.

Truly wacko-conspiracy drivel.

If your enemy has a spear, it makes sense to have a shield for protection. Sure, your enemy could harm you in other ways, but why throw away one form of protection against a specific weapon?

So the first shield you make did not work as expected, should you just give up or perfect it?



The $US11-billion-a-year missile defense program still has deep support in the Republican controlled Congress, but competition for funds may increase with the rising costs of the war in Iraq.

By some estimates, the Pentagon has already devoted $US130 billion to the program, and could still spend another $US50 billion on it.

Target missiles have been successfully intercepted in five of eight earlier attempts. However, all tests so far have been highly scripted events and not representative of the challenges of a real missile attack.

The system aims to defend the United States against a missile attack by a hostile nations such as North Korea.

[Clarsachier]

I wouldn't know.

Actually, I've have it on good authority, 'it's a French conspiracy.' ;)

Funny how 'Star Wars' was implimented by Reagan specifically to deter the Sov. nuke threat. Which it did, but by economically making the
arms race unfeasable for the Sovs.

And now, 'star wars' doesn't even work reliably on target drones. Think it would've worked agsinst the Sovs?

[b33f]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!

[Clarsachier]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!


You are 100 percent wrong.

google 'nuke in the box'.

U.S. customs occasionally ship in some DU inside seafreight containers to see if they're detected. They havn't detected the DU yet. At the tests take place at the few U.S. ports with detection equipment.

[b33f]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!


You are 100 percent wrong.

google 'nuke in the box'.

U.S. customs occasionally ship in some DU inside seafreight containers to see if they're detected. They havn't detected the DU yet. At the tests take place at the few U.S. ports with detection equipment.

yeah i know of an article describing such a test, but that's altogether a different business, why do you think it's called "DEPLETED URANIUM" ey?.. DU is far less radiocative than that (uranium) used in nukes.



DU is weakly radioactive.


and a strong radioactive source (like a nuclear bomb) cannot be shielded easily in a "seafreight" container, imagine what an 100-percent (except for the nuke itself) lead filled seafreight container would weigh.

[Clarsachier]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!


You are 100 percent wrong.

google 'nuke in the box'.

U.S. customs occasionally ship in some DU inside seafreight containers to see if they're detected. They havn't detected the DU yet. At the tests take place at the few U.S. ports with detection equipment.

yeah i know of an article describing such a test, but that's altogether a different business, why do you think it's called "DEPLETED URANIUM" ey?.. DU is far less radiocative than that (uranium) used in nukes.



DU is weakly radioactive.


and a strong radioactive source (like a nuclear bomb) cannot be shielded easily in a "seafreight" container, imagine what an 100-percent (except for the nuke itself) lead filled seafreight container would weigh.



Plutonium doesn't emit 'penetrating radiation' like - xrays or gamma is whats confusing you. (Why am I arguing this with somebody who can't spell ****! - Just kidding.)

If you'd actually took the time to do some research, you've found that
DU is used precisely because it simulates plutonium's radioactivity.

The nuke in the box is considered a much greater danger than North Korea's missle program.

[b33f]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!
You are 100 percent wrong.

google 'nuke in the box'.

U.S. customs occasionally ship in some DU inside seafreight containers to see if they're detected. They havn't detected the DU yet. At the tests take place at the few U.S. ports with detection equipment.

yeah i know of an article describing such a test, but that's altogether a different business, why do you think it's called "DEPLETED URANIUM" ey?.. DU is far less radiocative than that (uranium) used in nukes.



DU is weakly radioactive.

and a strong radioactive source (like a nuclear bomb) cannot be shielded easily in a "seafreight" container, imagine what an 100-percent (except for the nuke itself) lead filled seafreight container would weigh.
Plutonium doesn't emit 'penetrating radiation' like - xrays or gamma is whats confusing you. (Why am I arguing this with somebody who can't spell f***! - Just kidding.)

If you'd actually took the time to do some research, you've found that
DU is used precisely because it simulates plutonium's radioactivity.

The nuke in the box is considered a much greater danger than North Korea's missle program.

hmm, alright i wouldn't say that i'm an expert on this matter, if that's true i am sorry.

On multiple "nuke in the box" articles they [harbor officials] say that arriving containers are checked for radiation, what is this good for then, only dirty bombs?

Now you got me worried.

[BlackRain]

Depleted Uranium ( or U 238) is a weak alpha radiation emitter. Until the mid 1970s it was used in dental porcelains. To say the DU has the same radioactivity characteristics as Plutonium is false and shows your limited knowledge in this area. Pu is a strong gamma, beta, and alpha emitter.


Health aspects of DU

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

You can not say the same about Plutonium.


The cancer risk associated with the inhalation or ingestion of a given amount of plutonium can be determined as the product of three quantities: (1) the activity (activity is measured in curies) of plutonium per milligram, (2) the dose (measured in rem) delivered per unit of plutonium activity taken in, and (3) the risk of cancer per unit dose of radiation delivered to the body by that plutonium. The calculations below follow that pattern.

Alpha radiation can be stopped by a wet paper bag, gamma radiation requires lead.

[Trigger]

The nuke in the box is considered a much greater danger than North Korea's missle program.

While a 'nuke in the box' is frightening, during a crisis you can stop ships at sea or close off a harbor. Once a missile is in flight though, you either shoot it down or take a big hit.

If these countries are most likely to try to sneak one in, then why bother developing all this missile technology?

No system is perfect, but if you don't even try to make it work you guarantee failure.

[GrimmyRX]

Scott Ritter, the author of this story, is a discredited criminal who was involved in *** crimes with 14 and 16-year-old minors.


Oh, please, PLEASE give some proof of that assertment.

[ElHombre]

While a 'nuke in the box' is frightening, during a crisis you can stop ships at sea or close off a harbor. Once a missile is in flight though, you either shoot it down or take a big hit.

close off the harbor's? do you have any idea how that would affect the economy? stopping a single ship might work...if you can find which ship it is. (i presume it wouldn't have a NUKE ON BOARD sign.)


If these countries are most likely to try to sneak one in, then why bother developing all this missile technology?

No system is perfect, but if you don't even try to make it work you guarantee failure.

err... you've just stated two contradictory opinions. was the first supposed to be a quote?

[Clarsachier]

missile defence is a cold war relic
nk iran or libya don't have any Icbm and unlikely to get any
a suitcase nuke is probably the perferred way to target the states


Missle defence is BS left over from the cold war. If the enemy has a nuke, they don't need a missle. Just put the nuke in one of the 100,000 seafreight containers arriving daily in the U.S.'s conjested ports.

So, I don't believe the administration's line about protecting from 'less advanced' but 'rogue states'. There's some other agenda...

we already had this statement a couple of times, THE FVCKING RADIATION CAN BE (AND WOULD BE) DETECTED!!
You are 100 percent wrong.

google 'nuke in the box'.

U.S. customs occasionally ship in some DU inside seafreight containers to see if they're detected. They havn't detected the DU yet. At the tests take place at the few U.S. ports with detection equipment.

yeah i know of an article describing such a test, but that's altogether a different business, why do you think it's called "DEPLETED URANIUM" ey?.. DU is far less radiocative than that (uranium) used in nukes.



DU is weakly radioactive.

and a strong radioactive source (like a nuclear bomb) cannot be shielded easily in a "seafreight" container, imagine what an 100-percent (except for the nuke itself) lead filled seafreight container would weigh.
Plutonium doesn't emit 'penetrating radiation' like - xrays or gamma is whats confusing you. (Why am I arguing this with somebody who can't spell f***! - Just kidding.)

If you'd actually took the time to do some research, you've found that
DU is used precisely because it simulates plutonium's radioactivity.

The nuke in the box is considered a much greater danger than North Korea's missle program.

hmm, alright i wouldn't say that i'm an expert on this matter, if that's true i am sorry.

On multiple "nuke in the box" articles they [harbor officials] say that arriving containers are checked for radiation, what is this good for then, only dirty bombs?

Now you got me worried.


My point's just that (star wars) money is a waste when we're way more
vunerable from this attack scenario.

The containers weigh from 20 - 40 thousand pounds - shielding a radioactive source should be no problem. Anyway plutonium's real radioactive but the radiation's not the type that penetrates. And so, is
not easy to detect.

I wouldn't worry. If the tangos had a nuke, they would've used it.

[BlackRain]

Scott Ritter, the author of this story, is a discredited criminal who was involved in *** crimes with 14 and 16-year-old minors.


Oh, please, PLEASE give some proof of that assertment.

Do you live in a Cave without access to a radio, TV, or a newspaper?


www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/


Delmar Weapons Inspector in Hot Water

(updated: January 20th, 5:50pm) The spotlight is back on former UN Weapons Inspector and Delmar native, Scott Ritter. But it's not over Iraq instead its over charges he talked with an underage girl on the Internet.


The Daily Gazette broke the story over the weekend. The paper says Ritter was arrested in June of 2001 after having a ****** conversation on the Internet with someone he "thought" was an underage girl. The girl turned out to be an undercover investigator.

Sources tell NEWS10 that Ritter contacted what he thought was a teenage girl on the internet for the purpose of a ****** interlude not once, but twice within a three month period back in 2001. Ritter also underwent court-ordered *** offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.


UN's Ritter faced *** rap
New York Daily News 01/19/2003

ALBANY - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet *** sting operation, law enforcement sources told the Daily News.
Ritter, who lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, is now a high-profile critic of President Bush's war preparations.

He was arrested by Colonie Police in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a ****** discussion on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was an underage girl, law enforcement sources disclosed on condition of anonymity.

The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette reported yesterday that Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week for failing to inform him of the case against Ritter.

Clyne said that as a "sensitive" case, it should have been brought to his attention.

Ritter, who has made frequent appearances on network television after speaking to the Iraq National Assembly last year, could not be reached for comment.




Democrat Albany NY attorney fired for supressing 2001 arrest of William Scott Ritter
Daily Gazette Schenectady, NY January 18, 2003

COLONIE - The assistant district attorney who handled a 2001 misdemeanor charge against former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has been fired for failing to tell her boss the case ever even existed. "I was shocked and angered to learn that the case had been disposed of by one of my assistant district attorneys without consulting me," said Albany County District Attorney Paul Clyne. "Any arguably sensitive case should be brought to my attention."

Details of the specific charge against Ritter, who sources said was arrested by Colonie police and charged with a class B misdemeanor on June 15, 2001, were sealed.

On Friday, Clyne fired Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser, who had worked in the DA's office for 15 years. She did not return calls for comment.

[Clarsachier]

Alpha radiation can be stopped by a wet paper bag, gamma radiation requires lead.[/quote]



Dude;

Quote : External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.htm

[BlackRain]

Scott Ritter, the author of this story, is a discredited criminal who was involved in *** crimes with 14 and 16-year-old minors.


Oh, please, PLEASE give some proof of that assertment.





Ex-UN aide may face federal *** rap

By JOE MAHONEY
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

ALBANY - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, snared two years ago in an Internet *** sting, now may face a federal probe in the case.
Acting on a request from local federal prosecutors, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi has directed that sealed Ritter case files be turned over to the feds, officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Ritter, a vocal opponent of President Bush's Iraqi war preparations, was arrested by police in Colonie, an Albany suburb, in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge of endangering an underage girl.

Sources familiar with the case said Ritter, now 41, used the Internet handle "onexhibition" as he arranged a meeting with the teen - actually an undercover cop - and proposed that she watch him masturbate.

The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning that if he stayed out of trouble for six months, the charges would be erased and the case sealed.

However, sources familiar with the case said the feds still could prosecute Ritter under federal law for allegedly trying to lure a minor into ****** activity.

Ritter has confirmed the arrest but said that news reports about it surfaced in an attempt to silence his opposition to a war with Iraq. He has refused to discuss details of the case.

Ritter and his attorney, Norah Murphy, did not return phone calls.

Neither Teresi - who presided over the trial of four New York City cops acquitted in 2000 in the fatal police shooting of Amadou Diallo in the Bronx in February 1999 - nor federal prosecutors could be reached for comment.

"I'd like nothing more than to be a vocal opponent to this war, to being an effective voice to the anti-war movement," Ritter told Schenectady TV station WRGB after the scandal surfaced.

Originally published on January 26, 2003


Ritter case has ripple effect

Jan. 21, 2003

ALBANY, NY, Jan. 21 - The June 2001 arrest of former U.N. weapons inspector and Delmar resident Scott Ritter has made many headlines this week. Ritter faced misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for ****** acts.

.... Ritter was charged with attempted endangerment of a child. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and was subsequently sealed. ...

POSSIBLE PRIOR ARREST

Colonie police arrested Ritter -- whose full name is William Scott Ritter Jr. -- as part of an internet *** crime sting. The police department cannot comment on the arrest, because all records on the case have been sealed.

However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about the arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform ****** acts on himself.

The underage girl turned out to be an undercover police officer posing online as a minor.

Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirms her client was arrested in June 2001, but will not discuss the details of the case because the records have been sealed.

However, that might not have been Ritter's first brush with the law. According to the Albany Times Union, two months before that arrest, Ritter tried to meet a 14-year-old girl he chatted with online and was instead met by police officers. The newspaper reports that he was released without being charged.

NewsChannel 13 spoke with Ritter on his cell phone Tuesday. He offered no comment on the story.

The 41-year-old former Marine served as a weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. He has been an outspoken critic of President Bush's plans for war against Iraq.

[BlackRain]

Dude, you really don't care you look like an idiot - do you?

Quote : External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.htm

Really? I know this may be hard for you to understand, so I will type slowly.

Radiological hazards of Plutonium Isotopes:

Plutonium-241 decays into Americium-241, which is an intense gamma emitter. Main use of Pu241: Production of thermoelectric power used in nuclear weapons, satallites, and heart pacemakers.

Pu-238 - alpha and weak gamma

Pu-239 - alpha and weak gamma

Pu-240 - alpha and weak gamma

Pu-241 - beta and weak gamma

Plutonium often contains other radioactive materials as impurities, especially americium-241 (that is also created by the radioactive decay of Pu-241).

Pu-242 - alpha and weak gamma


Some plutonium isotopes, especially Pu-238, Pu-240 and Pu-242, also emit neutrons.

Alpha radiation is relatively easy to screen. Gamma radiation and neutrons are very penetrating. That means that radiation from weapons-grade plutonium is easy to screen; it is more difficult to screen radiation from reactor plutonium because it contains a higher portion of gamma and neutron emitters.

[Baboonass]

Sigh..

Oh boy, now were talking nukes.

First off, the missle defence program would be highly benificial to everyone involved, here's why.

Through out history weapon systems have been replaced by future technolgies. The stick was replaced by the stone, stone replaced by the bronze sword, bronze replaced by steel, armoured knights replaced by archers, archers replaced by firearms, etc..etc..

Balistic missle systems are outdated, the cold war is over, but it's presence is still required becasue there is no alternative. If and when the missle defence system gets set in place, the threat of incomming missles will be diminished, and we can relook into our current nuclear deterent stategy. Think of the millions of dollars we will save when we finally start to dismantal most of our ballistic missle fleet. Think of the manpower use just to protect the nuclear missle systems that are currently in place.



Anyway, about the DU argument. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched Uranium to function, the radiation signature is quite different.

[Clarsachier]

Sigh..

Oh boy, now were talking nukes.

First off, the missle defence program would be highly benificial to everyone involved, here's why.

Through out history weapon systems have been replaced by future technolgies. The stick was replaced by the stone, stone replaced by the bronze sword, bronze replaced by steel, armoured knights replaced by archers, archers replaced by firearms, etc..etc..

Balistic missle systems are outdated, the cold war is over, but it's presence is still required becasue there is no alternative. If and when the missle defence system gets set in place, the threat of incomming missles will be diminished, and we can relook into our current nuclear deterent stategy. Think of the millions of dollars we will save when we finally start to dismantal most of our ballistic missle fleet. Think of the manpower use just to protect the nuclear missle systems that are currently in place.

SLCMs make the ballistic missle (and anti IBM) technology almost obsolete. All these bucks for R&D? Come on! And the administration isn't using your argument. Instead, it's promoting an ineffective deterrent as a counter to 'rogue states.'

Anyway, about the DU argument. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched Uranium to function, the radiation signature is quite different.

U.S. customs are using the DU for their enforcement mission. I think that they know what they're doing? They havn't detected a shipment yet. according to them. http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-29536sy0dec27,0,2854349.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews

I know the radiation parameters of plutonium, and I do not believe it would be possible to detect it without a sophisticated scan of each and every shipment into the U.S. - which is impossible.

This threat far exceeds that of 'rogue state's' ICBMs and, missle defence will do nothing to protect against it.

[Clarsachier]

Alpha radiation is relatively easy to screen. Gamma radiation and neutrons are very penetrating. That means that radiation from weapons-grade plutonium is easy to screen; it is more difficult to screen radiation from reactor plutonium because it contains a higher portion of gamma and neutron emitters.[/quote]



Reactor plutonium?

I thought we were talking about nuclear devices. (hey, you have to admit I got you on that one :) .

[GazB]

What a strange article.

The write definitely has a chip on his shoulder. The NMD system was never intended to stop any Russian missiles. If he really does know anything about the Russian nuclear forces he would know that an accidental launch is about as likely as a US accidental launch... ie almost zero. He would also know that an unauthorised launch by rogue elements within the Russian armed forces could not be stopped either... they don't have one button for each missile... one rogue commander has at his command several dozen missiles with warhead numbers in the low hundreds. No lesser rank could fire the weapons and certainly no one below his rank would question a launch... they can't afford that anymore than the US could afford to have US soldiers in US ICBM bunkers that question orders.

The purpose of the NMD is to defend against the intentional launch of nuclear weapons from a country that doesn't have large numbers of weapons nor particularly capable weapons. Of course any country that would actually intend to use such a weapon (as opposed to those who want the capability for deterrance... the same use the West and Russia uses it for) would be able to save huge amounts of money simply by buying a very large Russian anti ship missile that weighs 10 tons and can be launched from a container ship and can fly low for 1,000km and carry a large warhead... a simple autopilot with a timed fuse would suffice. the number of drug planes the penetrate the US's southern border suggests it would have an excellent chance of getting in... look at the similar weapons the iraqis used (without the nuke warheads of course...)... and how does the US air defence system over southern US compare to what they had set up over Kuwaite?

Of course failing that how about Marberg fever or Ebola in a container ship? The evasion options are enormous... and the risk of getting the finger pointed at you for doing it are much lower if you don't sign it yourself by firing an ICBM from your own territory.

On a positive note I think the NMD is a really stupid idea the way it is now but the technologies it creates might prove useful in the future against smaller asteroids...

[Trigger]

Damn it GazB!

You weren't supposed to tell them about the asteroid... :lol:

[Turhapuro]

Of course failing that how about Marberg fever or Ebola in a container ship? The evasion options are enormous... and the risk of getting the finger pointed at you for doing it are much lower if you don't sign it yourself by firing an ICBM from your own territory.
But if you have secret nukes/biological weapons near USA, you lose the main reason for WMD: they are ultimate deterrent and not meant for use! If missile defence works, all small missile nations such as North Korea, lose their ability to directly threat USA with proven weaponry. Ofcourse they can threat to use that kind of weaponry, but what if they are found before crisis (say, someone defects and tells about it)? ICBMs can't be knocked out without ful scale war.

(I don't know if it is worh of all that money)

[GazB]

But if you have secret nukes/biological weapons near USA, you lose the main reason for WMD: they are ultimate deterrent and not meant for use!

Except NMD is based on the idea that countries like Iran and North Korea can't be trusted not to actually use any WMD they might get hold of.
Most rational people would assume NK and Iran want nuclear weapons so they become relatively safe from what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if a country ever actually wanted to really attack the US it would not use an ICBM to do it as that would draw instant retaliation and probably world support for that retaliation.

If however a planned release of Marburg fever that seemed to spread out of control no matter what restrictions were imposed... is if it were being spread intentionally then the US might suspect someone but without any serious convincing proof they would not be able to take direct action for at least a while.

[GrimmyRX]

See BlackRain, that wasn't so hard now was it? :P

But here's an interesting question:
how much, exactly, does ****** stupidity and pervertion have to do with his job?

[Trigger]

See BlackRain, that wasn't so hard now was it? :P

But here's an interesting question:
how much, exactly, does ****** stupidity and pervertion have to do with his job?
A whole lot if certain people are privy to the information and use it to blackmail him into not doing his job. Did you really not already understand that?

[RomanS]

As much as I respect the USA, I'm glad Russia has Topol-M

Topol-M is one of the reasons why no country in the world will step on our backyard, or will attack us. It's our peacemaker.
It makes the little ***** countries like Finland complain, and nothing more.

[Elmo]

As much as I respect the USA, I'm glad Russia has Topol-M

Topol-M is one of the reasons why no country in the world will step on our backyard, or will attack us. It's our peacemaker.
It makes the little ***** countries like Finland complain, and nothing more.

Well, I'd rather have a small effective one than a huge diseased floppy donkey one which doesn't work.

[RomanS]

As much as I respect the USA, I'm glad Russia has Topol-M

Topol-M is one of the reasons why no country in the world will step on our backyard, or will attack us. It's our peacemaker.
It makes the little ***** countries like Finland complain, and nothing more.

Well, I'd rather have a small effective one than a huge diseased floppy donkey one which doesn't work.

go and find out or ask Chechens if it doesnt work

[Elmo]

go and find out or ask Chechens if it doesnt work

You are boasting with Chechnya? Gee, that's really a success, a true example of the Russian way. Congratulations.

Yes, small ***** Finland, yes big big powerful Russia wipes little countries off the map. Yes. :lol:

[Dima-RussianArms]

Roma :cantbeli:

[Kilgor]

Except NMD is based on the idea that countries like Iran and North Korea can't be trusted not to actually use any WMD they might get hold of.
Most rational people would assume NK and Iran want nuclear weapons so they become relatively safe from what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if a country ever actually wanted to really attack the US it would not use an ICBM to do it as that would draw instant retaliation and probably world support for that retaliation.

.

Iran has gone on the public record as saying they wish the destruction of the zionist state. It doesnt take genius to work out the best way to do for this.

As for North Korea, I wouldnt count on them being "rational". After all we have learned about that horrible place, would you be willing to bet on a starving, stalinist dictatorship filled with gulags on being "rational" ?

[GazB]

Iran has gone on the public record as saying they wish the destruction of the zionist state. It doesnt take genius to work out the best way to do for this.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a rather huge difference between what a country says and what a country will do.
Pakistan has the bomb now and have a rather less stable government than Iran does... an unelected military dictatorship... why don't you bomb them first... oh that is right, they are helping the US fight the Taleban.
But then they created the Taliban in the first place didn't they?

If you actually looked at Irans history it is rather more often the victim than the aggressor.

Israel supposedly developed a nuclear capability just in case other countries in the region developed nuclear weapons themselves... surprise, surprise some of them are trying to achieve that now. There is no proof that Iran is currently trying to acheive that status.
They make money from oil exports... it makes sense not to consume too much of that valuable export dollar earner... nuclear power makes sense for them. If they want that who are you to say they can't have it?


After all we have learned about that horrible place, would you be willing to bet on a starving, stalinist dictatorship filled with gulags on being "rational" ?

What choice to we have? Bomb them and make them do something worse. Chem and bio weapons are easy to make... just hard to deploy efficiently. Keep pushing them into a corner and eventually they will have to bite back. Leave them alone, even give them aide, and perhaps if they think you are not trying to screw them they might lighten up. Threats and sanctions haven't worked very well up until now.

Can't you see that threats of bombing and invasion is what is pushing these countries to consider nuclear weapons as a solution. An ICBM is only an offensive weapon if the other side hasn't got any or they are worse or fewer in number than yours. That doesn't apply to NK or Iran.

[SeanAshi]

Iran has gone on the public record as saying they wish the destruction of the zionist state. It doesnt take genius to work out the best way to do for this.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a rather huge difference between what a country says and what a country will do.
Pakistan has the bomb now and have a rather less stable government than Iran does... an unelected military dictatorship... why don't you bomb them first... oh that is right, they are helping the US fight the Taleban.
But then they created the Taliban in the first place didn't they?

If you actually looked at Irans history it is rather more often the victim than the aggressor.

Israel supposedly developed a nuclear capability just in case other countries in the region developed nuclear weapons themselves... surprise, surprise some of them are trying to achieve that now. There is no proof that Iran is currently trying to acheive that status.
They make money from oil exports... it makes sense not to consume too much of that valuable export dollar earner... nuclear power makes sense for them. If they want that who are you to say they can't have it?


After all we have learned about that horrible place, would you be willing to bet on a starving, stalinist dictatorship filled with gulags on being "rational" ?

What choice to we have? Bomb them and make them do something worse. Chem and bio weapons are easy to make... just hard to deploy efficiently. Keep pushing them into a corner and eventually they will have to bite back. Leave them alone, even give them aide, and perhaps if they think you are not trying to screw them they might lighten up. Threats and sanctions haven't worked very well up until now.

Can't you see that threats of bombing and invasion is what is pushing these countries to consider nuclear weapons as a solution. An ICBM is only an offensive weapon if the other side hasn't got any or they are worse or fewer in number than yours. That doesn't apply to NK or Iran.
Last time I checked Pakistan isn't a sworn enemy of Israel like Iran is..am I wrong?

[Kilgor]

Iran has gone on the public record as saying they wish the destruction of the zionist state. It doesnt take genius to work out the best way to do for this.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a rather huge difference between what a country says and what a country will do.
Pakistan has the bomb now and have a rather less stable government than Iran does... an unelected military dictatorship... why don't you bomb them first... oh that is right, they are helping the US fight the Taleban.
But then they created the Taliban in the first place didn't they?



Like he said, Pakistan isnt a swore enemy of Israel.


Israel supposedly developed a nuclear capability just in case other countries in the region developed nuclear weapons themselves... surprise, surprise some of them are trying to achieve that now. There is no proof that Iran is currently trying to acheive that status.

Israel developed nuclear weapons as a threat to any number of arab armies that have waged a war of destruction on her. Israel is a very small country with a small population surrounded by countries and people that wish to remove it from the map. Thats why they have a nuke.


Leave them alone, even give them aide, and perhaps if they think you are not trying to screw them they might lighten up. Threats and sanctions haven't worked very well up until now.


Of course the world wishes north korea would just be left alone. But the only way north korea can survive is by blackmailing and playing this dangerous game of "give us X and we wont wage war". In a stalinist state like NK, they need a constant enemy such as the united states to take the people;s mind off the **** communist government they have. AKA 1984, a constant state of war.

They have recieved what they want from blackmail before, they will just get more bold and aggressive in future.