Is humanity worth the price of a missile defense shield?

[FrankGSterleJr]

North Korean militaristic fanaticism is yet another good, perhaps even urgent, reason for developing an anti-missile defence shield that the U.S. is already planning to begin establishing in four European NATO-member nations (and is also now urged by Ottawa to develop, though to a smaller extent, in upstate New York or Maine); and it may, hopefully, eventually become a system that would destroy all confirmed-hostile, airborne projectiles regardless of their origin—and thus no more alleged need for nuclear tests. Its computer system would monitor the planet’s entire air space and be in control (with fail-safe mechanisms in place, of course) of launching anti-missile defensive measures; it would have to function independently of any one, or group of, nation(s) but rather operate in the protection of all nations.
A ground-to-air anti-missile shield is very plausible. Note the unanticipated success of the anti-Iragi-scud-missile Patriot batteries stationed in Israel during Desert Storm.
As for those who whine that such a defence system would be too expensive—just how much is Earth and humanity worth?

[The Voice of Time]

I think there are quite few people who actually disagrees that we should have such a system. Especially since Europeans don't have to pay so much for it

I don't think you'll need to have just one, though. Russian and China will probably have their own, but that will probably also just be a blessing to everyone and get those tough guys in suits off the big red buttons.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.

















.........................................................................












.

[Arising_uk]

North Korean militaristic fanaticism is yet another good, perhaps even urgent, reason for developing an anti-missile defence shield that the U.S. is already planning to begin establishing in four European NATO-member nations (and is also now urged by Ottawa to develop, though to a smaller extent, in upstate New York or Maine); and it may, hopefully, eventually become a system that would destroy all confirmed-hostile, airborne projectiles regardless of their origin—and thus no more alleged need for nuclear tests. Its computer system would monitor the planet’s entire air space and be in control (with fail-safe mechanisms in place, of course) of launching anti-missile defensive measures; it would have to function independently of any one, or group of, nation(s) but rather operate in the protection of all nations.
A ground-to-air anti-missile shield is very plausible. Note the unanticipated success of the anti-Iragi-scud-missile Patriot batteries stationed in Israel during Desert Storm.
As for those who whine that such a defence system would be too expensive—just how much is Earth and humanity worth?

I thought you were planning on moving them from Europe and putting them on your pacific seaboard? As it appears the Pacific is where its at for you now.

It all sounds nice but you'll be blowing them up over me!

I thought the Patriot batteries performance in the Iraq 'wars' was still controversial?

Still, in 2003 it managed to shoot down one of our Tornados. Yank friendly-fired is a renowned joke in the British Army, although you'll hear no complaints as it saves our arses more often than not.

[LeadByExemption]

North Korean militaristic fanaticism is yet another good, perhaps even urgent, reason for developing an anti-missile defence shield that the U.S. is already planning to begin establishing in four European NATO-member nations (and is also now urged by Ottawa to develop, though to a smaller extent, in upstate New York or Maine); and it may, hopefully, eventually become a system that would destroy all confirmed-hostile, airborne projectiles regardless of their origin—and thus no more alleged need for nuclear tests. Its computer system would monitor the planet’s entire air space and be in control (with fail-safe mechanisms in place, of course) of launching anti-missile defensive measures; it would have to function independently of any one, or group of, nation(s) but rather operate in the protection of all nations.
A ground-to-air anti-missile shield is very plausible. Note the unanticipated success of the anti-Iragi-scud-missile Patriot batteries stationed in Israel during Desert Storm.
As for those who whine that such a defence system would be too expensive—just how much is Earth and humanity worth?

I suppose hummanity is worth the price for a human defense shield, but do you expect me to believe that those "protected" wouldn't fire back? Vengeance will destroy humanity in a nuclear conflict, and no shield can stop that.