DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**rfceicizgm** · 09-05-2010, 04:58 AM

Assuming that you are not going to launch these at the heart of a country with nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that still leaves a lot of the world where placing a large explosive charge at a precise location may be of use.

Goober,

Right now we have the ability to differentiate between a Strategic launch and a Tactical launch. An ICBM launch or a SLBM launch, unannounced, raises the pucker factor all the way to the top in places around the world. If it's an accident, phones start ringing right away and apologies come fast and furious until it can be determined that there is no threat.

A conventional ICBM or SLBM muddies the waters and makes things even more dangerous. Just because a country says that they don't have a nuke doesn't mean that they're telling the truth....even if they sign a treaty. It also doesn't mean that they don't have alliances with nuclear capable states. Let's say, hypothetically, that we launch one of these things at North Korea who has sworn that they have given up all of their nukes and they retaliate or China retaliates for them? What have we accomplished? That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is that some moron will be less than contemplative about launching one of these things because they are "less lethal" and start off a firestorm first from the confusion created by problem #1 and then by the rightful anger of the target, their allies, and anyone else that is pissed off by such a stupid stunt.

This is like carrying a pistol loaded with snake shot into a gunfight.

09-05-2010, 04:58 AM	#8
rfceicizgm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 479 Senior Member	Assuming that you are not going to launch these at the heart of a country with nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that still leaves a lot of the world where placing a large explosive charge at a precise location may be of use. Goober, Right now we have the ability to differentiate between a Strategic launch and a Tactical launch. An ICBM launch or a SLBM launch, unannounced, raises the pucker factor all the way to the top in places around the world. If it's an accident, phones start ringing right away and apologies come fast and furious until it can be determined that there is no threat. A conventional ICBM or SLBM muddies the waters and makes things even more dangerous. Just because a country says that they don't have a nuke doesn't mean that they're telling the truth....even if they sign a treaty. It also doesn't mean that they don't have alliances with nuclear capable states. Let's say, hypothetically, that we launch one of these things at North Korea who has sworn that they have given up all of their nukes and they retaliate or China retaliates for them? What have we accomplished? That's problem #1. Problem #2 is that some moron will be less than contemplative about launching one of these things because they are "less lethal" and start off a firestorm first from the confusion created by problem #1 and then by the rightful anger of the target, their allies, and anyone else that is pissed off by such a stupid stunt. This is like carrying a pistol loaded with snake shot into a gunfight.
	Quote