But much of US military spending has to do with occupation costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*again*  Nuclear fallout

No matter where you set off the bombs, radiation gets kicked upinto the atmosphere and spreads throughout the world.  So even if every nuke lands at one spot, every creature is still screwed.

I doubt that Destroyyoutoo.

"The sudden climate change due to dust kicking into the air, maybe?"

So your saying that no creature or plant could survive a sudden drop in climate? Wow, what an icy and lonesome age that would be.

I call the bluff. When we all die, i'll admit i was wrong. Until then, i'm right though.

> Hell, your analysis of nuclear war is a prediction.  You lose.

I have not analyzed any war. Ergo your statements are contradictory and downright n00by.

Look at humans. They have become fat, lazy and stupid. As per the natural course of evolution, an event will arise to strengthen the race. That event could very well be nuclear war. And even if all humans are wiped out, whats to say that we cannot evolve just as we have done in the past? Nothing.

You are the one making assumptions, i just declare the idea of nuclear war as non-world-ending.

But i can't be bothered making real posts -- because i'm arguing with someone that still believes Al Gore is god and global warming is the new vietnam.

Skoe.  Look up nuclear fallout.  I'm not making it up .  That's much more to worry about then anything you all have been saying.  I'd take ice age of radiation in the air any day.

Is that it, 70 missiles? Some of which we know (if we read the article properly) are small missiles, and some of which might be ICBM's. Might be.
Does it really make a difference considering the other 1000 missiles, missiles that we know, for a fact, are ICBM's?

In my opinion, no.

fokker, as i stated before i think the new missles will have better tech and will make a defense against those missles, nearly impossible, unlike the older ones that are fairly slow.

> Schniepel wrote:

> so.. if US abandones their missile shield.. and in return russia does not develop new icbm.. we will have same effect at way less cost..
lets do it:d

Except the US missile shield is to protect against Iran, North Korea... you know, people who use those old rusty missiles.

> Schniepel wrote:

> noko abandoned their nuclear intentions...
Iran will most likely be bombed into oblivion before they can develop icbm.
Alaska.. Poland.. Chzech Republic.. its all at russias borders...
it so much looks like it would be against them...

1: A couple dozen anti-missile missiles can't overcome a Russian assault.  It's simple math.
2: True, North Korea abandoned their program.  However, there should still be SOME precaution against them, considering that hidden programs could exist.  Most likely, though, north Korea's nuke program is done for.  But they have lied about their nuke programs before, so we might not want to 100% trust them yet.  As for Iran...

First of all, do you really think Obama will attack Iran?  Go ahead and say "Obama will initiate a preemptive strike against Iran" with a straight face. 
Second, Iran doesn't need an ICBM.  Simple ballistic missiles (advanced SCUDs, possibly) could carry nuclear weapons, albeit not targeting the US itself.
Third, the technology for an ICBM is already available: Thank you, North Korea.  NoKo and Iran have been sharing technology, as evidenced by the ship seized about a year ago that came from NoKo, had documents saying it was headed for Iran and Syria, carrying nuclear material.
Fourth... um... Russian assistance to Iran?

Who is sying US will Bomb Iran? Its more likely Israel who will.. if we can believe their minister of defense they are allready prepared for it.

Also no one knows how far Iranian tech regarding the nuke itself really is. some say they are almost done.. others say at least 10 more years.

if iran plans to nuke Isrel.. the shield in poland and alaska and california is useless anyways because its too far away.
I dont know who iran would nuke if not Israel or USA.

And btw.. all this nuclear tech in noko and iran comes from.. tadaaa.. pakiastan.. US big ally in the war against terror.

> Schniepel wrote:

> Who is sying US will Bomb Iran? Its more likely Israel who will.. if we can believe their minister of defense they are allready prepared for it.

Also no one knows how far Iranian tech regarding the nuke itself really is. some say they are almost done.. others say at least 10 more years.

if iran plans to nuke Isrel.. the shield in poland and alaska and california is useless anyways because its too far away.
I dont know who iran would nuke if not Israel or USA.

And btw.. all this nuclear tech in noko and iran comes from.. tadaaa.. pakiastan.. US big ally in the war against terror.

First, on the Israeli strike issue... Israel needs the approval of the US to do things.  No, not officially.  But Israel going it alone to attack Iran would devastate their relations with the US under an Obama administration since it would undermine Obama's peaceful efforts toward Iran.

In addition, you assume that Israel's attack will actually succeed.  Hidden nuke programs can exist, and even if none exist, we would need to assume that the strike will go perfectly, and there aren't any facilities defended to a higher degree than what Israel knows about.  If there's even a single program around, Iran could rally the people against Israel and really get a crash nuclear program going.

As for the missile locations... let's go one by one:

Alaska and California... you're right, they're not around to stop Iran from a direct missile strike.  However, there's a second scenario that has always been a possibility.  The story goes like this: A small Iranian boat disguised as a civilian fishing boat goes to one of the coastlines of the US.  Once there, the ship launches a single missile (which Iran, by the way, has already designed and tested to be a success) straight into the sky.  Once it gets high enough into space, it blows up a nuke, releasing an EMP across the US (it needs to get to space because the upper atmosphere serves as a conductor for the EMP blast).  Game over for the US.

As for Poland... considering that France has probably been the most hardline opponent of Iran (they have an established policy that they will nuke Iran if there's a big terrorist attack in France), France could be a threat (spare the France jokes right now).  The UK may also be a potential target, but the UK just might be beyond the reach of current Iranian missiles.  A threat against Europe could be just enough to prevent them from further aggression against Iran, isolating the United States and Israel as lone crusaders against Islam.

And as for Pakistan, differentiate here: The nuclear knowledge was sold by a Pakistani scientist, not by the Pakistani government.  You're just generalizing at this point.