I know you're not alone. To you a tree is just a tree and space is just space. No nuances, just black and white, zero or one, right or wrong, drunk or sober, heaven or hell. Everything is simpler that way, you don't have to think, you just react to 2 choices, one of which you believe and the other is just opposite - no in-between to muddy things up and cause confusion. How quaint...
provide a link....and give me the definition of intercepted....hell i'll do it for you...a. The interception of a missile by another missile or an aircraft by another aircraft.intercept Verb1. to stop or seize on the way from one place to another a. a point at which two figures intersect interceptv intercept [intəˈsept]to stop or catch (a person, thing etc) before he, it etc arrives at the place to which he, it etc is going, being sent etc The messenger was intercepted on his way to the king.
But putting it in space, it would count as a militarisation of space. It would encourage the launch of satillites capable of killing it, which would encourage the development of weapons that could destroy these, and so the escalation goes on.
No, it didnt work properly. When they tested it, they said it "intercepted" a target, it didn't even HIT the target. It went near the target, and if that target was a nuclear missile, New York or Washington DC or Seattle or Los Angeles or whatever would be a pile of radioactive debris.
Missile defense is DIFFERENT than missile offense used outside our planet's orbit. Claiming we control exclusive domain in outer space is both insane and idiotic when a terrorist can walk into a train station with a nuclear weapon and go poof...
really? you are the one that can't concede a valid point when FACTS are presented.....lol
I know you're not alone. To you a tree is just a tree and space is just space. No nuances, just black and white, zero or one, right or wrong, drunk or sober, heaven or hell. Everything is simpler that way, you don't have to think, you just react to 2 choices, one of which you believe and the other is just opposite - no in-between to muddy things up and cause confusion. How quaint...
provide a link....and give me the definition of intercepted....hell i'll do it for you...a. The interception of a missile by another missile or an aircraft by another aircraft.intercept Verb1. to stop or seize on the way from one place to another a. a point at which two figures intersect interceptv intercept [intəˈsept]to stop or catch (a person, thing etc) before he, it etc arrives at the place to which he, it etc is going, being sent etc The messenger was intercepted on his way to the king.
i do not see it that way....and i am not alone...
But putting it in space, it would count as a militarisation of space. It would encourage the launch of satillites capable of killing it, which would encourage the development of weapons that could destroy these, and so the escalation goes on.
No, it didnt work properly. When they tested it, they said it "intercepted" a target, it didn't even HIT the target. It went near the target, and if that target was a nuclear missile, New York or Washington DC or Seattle or Los Angeles or whatever would be a pile of radioactive debris.
whether it be on the ground or in space it is all missile defense....no matter how you try to twist it...
our missile defense system does work.....and missile defense is missile defense whether it be on the ground or in space...
He said we need missile defence systems, but not (a) in space and (B) not the current, non working missile defence systems. No contradicting here.
Missile defense is DIFFERENT than missile offense used outside our planet's orbit. Claiming we control exclusive domain in outer space is both insane and idiotic when a terrorist can walk into a train station with a nuclear weapon and go poof...
Officeshrew, you're on a roll!