I was not trying to turn this topic off point, I was merely asking if India had a system of checks and balences. One of the ultimate goals of this system is to crack down on police corruption, this case included. Also, I am not offering any wild consipiracy theorys, give me some credit.

I think part of the bigger issue here is what the international reprecussions of this are going to be. The UN is rather distracted at the moment. The question is, will they eventually get involved here?

I never said anything about "patriot nuclear missiles". The patriot is not nuclear. It is designed to directly intercept missiles. My point, which you deliberately perverted, is that an updated version of this system could be used to guard against nuclear-grade missiles. Its current primary function focuses on SCUD missiles. I speculated that China could have put TNT on that satilite, but I did not offer that as fact. And I have already withdrawn and apoligized for my mistake on Stephen Hawking, so that part of your argument is entirely invalid.

Honestly, do you have any other way of debateing besides drastically misquoting your opponets?

I don't care if the police in my country is corrupted..cuz seriously everything is corrupted in lebanon..I'd be surprised if something in this government is not corrupted!!:eek:

Kuzntskiy wrote:

Honestly, do you have any other way of debating than making false accusations, boasting about how many classes you have taken, what degrees you teachers hold, how good your school is, how A grade you are.....the list is endless.

Sounds a lot like McCarthy.

Neo, do you know any other way of debate besides deliberately misquoting everything I say? Let me break that idea down for the simpler minded.

A patriot missile shield is defensive. What I was suggesting that if the US was half as bad as ya'll claim, we would first build the patriot sheild then nuke everyone that disagrees with us.

Finally, some basic geography. Atlanta is in Georgia, not South Carolina.:rolleyes:

If missiles presented a viable counter-missile defensive measure, you can rest assured that using nuclear weapons in war would be alot more common than it currently is. A missile shield, while important politically, would have very little impact on a tactical scenario.

Neo, you're again missing my point. Its not about the specifics, its about the idea in general.

What I am argueing is that IF the US were as bad as some of ya'll claimed, certain things would be in place and would have been done.

I think you underestimate the abilities of the Trident ICBM, which hits within minimal time of takeoff and with very little warning to the target. See, the Trident is designed to enter into very low earth orbit- not in space of course. Upon approach of the target, the warhead splits, allowing the missile to attack 3 targets and decimating any one enemy. Multiple smaller countries could be taken out at once. Finally, the US is sitting on several thousand of theese devices. A suffecient simultanious launch would render most opposition useless.

Of course, praticaly every nuclear country is sitting on almost the same amount of firepower. I think even the weakest capabilities are equivelent to the Polaris and Poisiden class ICBMs.

Besides wasting more and more time, what exactly are you hopeing to accomplish? When I said nuclear power, I was clearly referring to a countrys stock of nuclear weapons. IF you have nuclear weapons, you're considerd a "nuclear power" militarily.

Polaris and Posiden are indeed ICBMS. While all three are primarily submarine launched, their position as ICBMS remains uncontested since they are indeed inter-continental.

And you're saying that the US would be victorious. If that was true and the US was as bad as you said, then why haven't we carried out such an action?

The US, no matter how incompetently led, will not so quickly aid in its own destruction. The launch of any nuclear warhead by another government will very likely trigger a global nuclear war. No one is comfortable with standing by whyle hostile orforeign governments exchange nuclear weapons. Any launch of nuclear weapons will lead to a nuclear war during which the vast majority of the global governments will be destroyed. It is called mutually assured destruction. It was this mutually assured destruction that aided in preventing a nuclear war during the Cold War.
So far as I have observed not even your Fuhrer Bush is bold enough to launch nuclear weapons.... yet.

The same reason the US has not attacked China or North Korea applies inversly. They are ultimately just as afraid of nukeing us as we are as them. Does wonders for maintaining world peace, now doesn't it?

Various countries are currently threatening to nuke each other as we speak. The reassuring thing is that no one will, simpley because of what Neo just talked about. The more nukes, the less chance of nuclear war. Odd, eh?

No nuclear device has been used in warfare. Odviousely two atomic bombs were employed in WWII, but atomic and nuclear are not the same thing. The only thing that could break this global stalemate is if one country came out with some bigger and better. Of course, if the past is anything to judge by, half the world (hyperbole) would be sitting on the same thing a week later.

Neo, in case you forgotten, Putin threatend to aim nukes at Western European capitals if they procedded to allow the missile sheild to be built.

Don't get me started on Iran, Isreal, and North Korea brandishing nukes at each other constantely. If anyone launchs a nuke, I'm cetain it'd come from the mid-east.

Putin has yet to explain why a defensive system would be threatening to him. Unless he's planning on fireing missiles any time soon- which I doubt- it has no real effect on him. Who knows, maybe its an ego issue.

The Mid-East (short for Middle east) is a region in Asia containing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There more but I'll spare ya'll a complete list. This term is preferred amongst journalists and common folk alike, including CNN. I find it ironic, Neo, that you would encourage me to watch it without watching it yourself. Thanks, but I prefer Fox.

Putin was responding to apolitical situation. Leaders of nations do not oppose military acts because they may be dangerouse, but because they may result in a weaker political position, weaker tactical position or cause a slew of other problems, imaginary or not. Besides, Putin's compromise on a new position for the defence system makes much more sense than Bush's inital plan. A shield to defend allies from Iran placed in Europe instead of a country closer to Iran, how silly.

Sorry, Fox doesn't cover comedy. Try Blue Collar.

One second you're railing against me for not watching CNN, the next you're making basless accusations against Fox.

All in all, I seriousely doubt the missile sheild had much to do with Russia. Seems like Putin is offended by something that has nothing to do with him.

More accusations, against Fox news this time, with no evidence. Honestly Neo, why do I even bother reading your posts anymore?