Missle defense shield nearly a reality. Liberals say superior defense compared to enemy unfair

You'd think any sane person would be happy that the country would be safe from a nuke missle strike. The key word here is 'sane'. Liberals are NOT happy to have an effective missle defense system.

'UNFAIR!' claim the Leftist.

'Why should we be immune to mass destruction via nuke strike while our enem......I mean the parties with which we have a diplomatic misunderstanding with....still be vulnerable ?' 'It's an outrage ! I say we should die if they die...perferably in a demographically identical fashion to make it fair.' 'Animals should be left out of this equation. Oh I so love animals ! Can we just have the missiles defend the animals but not the people ?'.

Please show one leftist who said that

Missile defense systems make a great deal of sense at the present time. The threat from missile attacks is increasing. Not so much ballistic nuclear missiles, but shorter range conventional missiles. It only makes sense to develop systems for countering them, and their longer-range cousins. Ronald Reagan was dead on the money back in the 1980s about the need to develop such systems. It is a sign of how pathetic R&D has become in the US that we still don't have anything that we know will work.

Short range missiles can't be stopped by anti missile missiles. Their flight time is too short. Particle beams could possibly do it.

Can't be stopped now. Maybe they can be stopped by future missiles.

See, it is thinking like this that scares me.

Okay, think about this. I'm going to launch a javelin at you from, say, 10 feet. I might miss, but the odds are good that if I have any skill in the area, you are going to get hit. Now, we are going to put a grenade on the end of the javelin.

You can have all the tech you want, if you don't know the javelin has been thrown, you get blown up. Explain how it could be otherwise. A short-range missile does not require much of a fuel supply, thus it won't fly hot. It doesn't need to fly very high, because it isn't going very far and doesn't need to take advantage of the trajectory bonus. So, how do you see it coming, and then how do you shoot it down?

Well, that's where star wars fall apart like a b hollywood movie. Since it doesn't matter if it's nuclear or convenitaonal, since short range missiles don't use interial guidance systems. Which is why they're even called missiles. Since short range ballistics are called bombs rather than missiles.

It only makes sense to develop systems for countering

What scares you? The possibility that an effective anti-missile defense may be developed in the future for short-range missiles? Why should that scare you?

The missiles such as were launched by Hezbollah against Israel were not ten feet away, but a good deal further than that. If it were possible to detonate them any significant distance from their targets, while still high in the air, their harmful effects could be mitigated. True, you'd still get crap raining down from the sky, but it would be unfocused crap.

The tech isn't there yet, but may be there in the future. It may consist of beams, missiles or projectiles. We won't know until it's developed.

The moment you can stop nukes is the moment they can become offensive weapons.

- Richard Hutnik

That makes little difference, since it's merely an academic study in Supreme Court babblology either way.

Which is obviously why we turned the whole issue over to Ann Coultier. Since the RNC is too Arnold Schwarznegger girly-man to do it, and the DNC is too unemployed and African to do it.

It scares me that you think such a thing is possible. No, it terrifies me. What DO they teach you kids in school these days?

Sigh. Explain, please, how you detect and shoot down a short range missile. Go ahead, make my year.

No, the tech will never be there. And the fact that you don't understand this is terrifying.