Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative
I recall reading around the height of the immediate post-9-11 hysteria that despite fears of a "dirty bomb" in NY or someplace, an even greater amount of damage could be done by simply dropping an amount of radioactive dust into one of the large water supplies that exist in the US. Other than obtaining the dust in the first place, and the delivery system is very low-tech indeed. In fact, the agent doesn't even need to be radioactive, since a sufficient amount of chemicals like dioxins would to the job just as well, without the more easily traceable radiation to deal with. --Kels 12:15, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- Well yes, building an ICBM is certainly doing things the hard way.--Bobbing up 13:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- So you're saying a solution which would require having tankers filled with dangerous chemicals stationed in the US on a semi-permanent basis without ever being discovered and without your agents stiffing you because they've been there so long they don't want to kill everyone after all, would be ridiculously easy to defend against since you'd just have to rig up some Geiger counters or do the kind of basic water tests that are performed on drinking water anyway, could not be used to target military installations and therefore would offer no protection against a second strike, and would take weeks to have any effect at all is better than press button A to blow up city B? King Skeleton (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
SDI was a hoax. It worked
SDI or "Star Wars" was part of Reagan's plan of Mutually Assured Bankrupcy. The Soviets saw SDI as a threat to be countered and were forced to build more and more MIRVed ICBMs and warheads. The American arsenal stayed about the same from 1976-1987 while the Soviet arsenal continued to increase until it was 75% larger than the US. Both fell dramticly from 1987-1995. The Soviet buildup was unnecessary since both sides had enough Megatonnage to blow the world up several times. So Reagan made the Soviets increase their stockpile and spend themselves into oblivion. Their economey could not take it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg Moonshot926 (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, this graph debunks the claim that the USSR's nuclear build-up, and bankruptcy, can be attributed to SDI. Note how the trend in the build-up does not change but shows a remarkable continuity before and after the introduction of SDI, before dropping as a consequence of the "thaw" in the late 1980s. Conversely, the drastic increase in Soviet nuclear arms, according to this very graph, actually began years prior to SDI (during the second half of the 1970s). So, by using this graph, the honour for the USSR's demise goes to... Jimmy Carter(?!?!)