SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (537212)12/17/2009 10:51:26 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 1579960
 
What risk? Even if it is true, and we don't know that, bases in the middle of the continent are just as vulnerable as ones anywhere else. Nukes don't have to be delivered by bomber any more. And ICBMs have had the range to hit any where on the continent decades ago.

This, of course, is a very feeble statement. As defenses against ICBMs continue to be strengthened, it is intuitive that "internal" locations will be easier to defend than coastal locations. Which is one of the reasons STRATCOM was the place chosen, after 9/11, to become the focal point of a great deal of both offensive and defensive activity.

In addition to being more secure from ICBM attack (marginally now, but likely very much more so in the future, if Obama doesn't fuck it up like he has pretty much everything else he's touched), its location is ideal for a facility of its kind -- one that is designed to be most unlikely to sustain a major attack of ANY kind -- nuclear, or otherwise. It wouldn't do to have it located in NYC or Chicago.

It should be totally obvious to you that your statement on this subject was rather stupid. The more distance an ICBM has to fly over land we can easily defend with countermeasures, the better.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext