If so, why? It makes very little sense, but if someone is really in favor of it, I would be happy to explain my rationale.
If so, why? It makes very little sense, but if someone is really in favor of it, I would be happy to explain my rationale.
I really don't think it's necessary at present (although it may be by the time it's finished and actually works), but since this has the looks of another long thread, I'll start the festivities:
I love missile defense! We need more military spending! Jobs jobs jobs! Even thought there's no way in hell it will work, let's do it anyways! It's fun to piss off our allies, too!
Shall we buy a new guitar?
Shall we drive a more powerful car?
I don't understand it on a strategic level.
If it's supposed to be a deterrent or something to intimidate our enemies, who out there isn't already deterred or intimidated by our current capabilities?
Who would NOT be deterred by such a capability? Well, how about those that don't have or use missiles? Terrorists, for one. I have little doubt that, should a dissident nation be inclined to really put the hurt on this country, all it would take would be a few very well placed car bombs or, worse, some sort of handheld nuclear nightmare. McVeigh should have taught us that lesson. Religious fanaticism (a popular term; does it really mean anything, other than the fanatic believes a different religion than the speaker?) is not deterred by a missile shield!
With all the effort being focused on stopping missiles, I think we're missing the real threat here. In fact, why would one of our enemies now develop missiles? They'll just shift from missiles to suitcase bombs. Done.
One word... useless
two words.. biological warfare
Can't stop the second one with rockets, can you now?
____________________
IF A FAT GIRL FALLS IN THE WOODS
DO THE TREES LAUGH?
Dang, I was going to say the same thing...
Wars will no longer be faught with missiles only... enter the microbes!
I say, nuke 'em all!
A priest, a paladin and Varimathras walk into a bar...
Technology warfare!
I like the idea of missile defense, but I also think the military is going about it all wrong. They're trying to shoot down one missile with another, practically head-on. No wonder it doesn't work. A better approach would be to use three or four smaller and faster missiles coming in from the sides and a little behind. Closing speeds are far lower using this method which makes success more likely, and you'd have three or four missiles instead of one, which bumps the chances even higher.
So, while I support the idea of missile defense, I think the way the government is going about the development and testing is more to keep the dollars flowing and people employed, rather than engaging in true development.
-OC
But WHY do you like it? I mean, sure, it's a cool idea, but if it's not needed, why the hell are we doing it? To have and to hold? As an intellectual exercise? Out of habit?Originally posted by overclocked
I like the idea of missile defense, but I also think the military is going about it all wrong. They're trying to shoot down one missile with another, practically head-on. No wonder it doesn't work. A better approach would be to use three or four smaller and faster missiles coming in from the sides and a little behind. Closing speeds are far lower using this method which makes success more likely, and you'd have three or four missiles instead of one, which bumps the chances even higher.
So, while I support the idea of missile defense, I think the way the government is going about the development and testing is more to keep the dollars flowing and people employed, rather than engaging in true development.
-OC
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pennypinch
I like it because I firmly believe that some day in the not too distant future some country (or terrorist group, or military regime, pick one or make up your own) will get their panties in a bunch and launch a missile at the US. Not nuclear necessarily, but a missile nontheless. If that missile hits its target, that will encourage other groups to follow suit. If we can shoot the missile down, that will likely stop the threat right there.But WHY do you like it? I mean, sure, it's a cool idea, but if it's not needed, why the hell are we doing it? To have and to hold? As an intellectual exercise? Out of habit?
As each of us has witnessed, the proliferation of technology has driven the cost of that technology down. To me that means it's much more likely now, as opposed to five or ten years ago, that a terrorist group (or whatever) can get all the parts to build a missile or three. Hell, they'll probably use Linux to run the thing
The US has a whole lot of enemies on this planet. We already have the ability to repel most traditional forms of attack, but we don't have the ability to protect the US (or our allies) against a missile attack. That's one defensive gap I'd like to see closed.
I observed some of the tests of this system at Vandenburg and how horribly they failed.
It was like the person controlling the aim was drunk or on drugs... oh, no wonder the Shrub likes it
If the US is nuked any time over the next 20 years, it will be from a planted bomb, probably by a terrorist organization, but maybe even by another country.
No country is going to fire a missle at us. Missles are easily traceable back to the launch point. And no country wants to be completely obliterated because it managed to launch a missle at the US.
But a planted bomb is basically untraceable unless someone talks. It's cheaper. It's more accurate. And it's more reliable. Most importantly, it's much easier, and MUCH cheaper.
In fact, I'd rather have a terrorist organization launch a missle at me than plant a bomb. There's a lot more that can go wrong with the missle, causing it not to hit it's target.
Build a missle defense, and all you do is garuntee that the first nuke attack on US soil will be from a suitcase bomb. Which also ensures that more people are going to die...
I like the concept, but I don't know how needed it is...but then, it only needs to be needed once.
I see no problem with investigating the technology - something useful almost always comes out of things like that. But I wouldn't bet the farm on anything like that, much less announce to the world we were going to do it, with some solid ideas that could actually work.
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature
"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes
Star Wars! Star Wars! Star Wars! Star Wars! Star Wars!
Shoot the bastards down with a solid laser shot from space. Accurate and effective.
But the other fellers are right -- the only effective and non-suicidal (at least for the country doing it) method of putting an explosive hurt on the US would be from within, with a planted bomb.
blurt blurt blurt
Of course we need missle defense.
It will help our military defense. Eventually, we will have missle defense. Just like eventually, we will go to mars, then each planet down the line. Eventually, we will have space travel, etc. These things are inevitable. Mankind, as all species, is genetically programmed to expand into all environments.
The only question is when.
Some country/company will establish a missle defense program. If we wait until every last Democrat can admit its feasible (which will probably be about the same time its used against us and we lose a war), then it will be too late.
If we wait until we know we can do it, so too will everyone else (Europe, China) know they can do it. We have to be first.
Second reason:
Missle defense is not just for missles. Once we establish a successful missle defense program, there are numerous next step opportunities. We can have long range missle defense against incoming aircraft. In fact, we can have missle defense against bunkered aircraft. Why wait until they're airborn?
With the precision to hit another ICBM in midflight, think how easy it would be to defend against any country. The US is concerned with civilian casualties. Imagine launching an offensive against each tank, transport, ship, plane, etc. of another country without risking a single US life or enemy civilian life.
As I see it, missle defense is just the next step in the evolution of military technology. We better get to it first, otherwise the US will lose its military hegemony.
If we had a space based system, why haven't we used it in the Middle East. Israel is regularly under attack from terrorist missiles (launched from Lebanon). If we had any chance of success, we would be using it. Even if we don't care about Israel, what about defending from scud attacks in the Gulf?
The reality is that the Patriot systems caused almost as much harm as they prevented.
As far as the inevitibility, what about the inevitability of overcoming those defenses? For example, the Stealth bomber was useful for about 10-15 years and now other countries have technology to defeat it. The same thing with almost everything else. Soon after "bulletproof" vests were invented they created "armor piercing" bullets. It is constantly an escalating race.
TheLoneGunman, the TheLoneGunman logo, these smarmy posts, the mess in his house, and his silly ebay auctions, among others, are registered trademarks and/or registered service marks and/or associated works of TheLoneGunman in the United States and other countries. Other parties' trademarks or service marks are the property of their respective owners and should be treated as such.
Perhaps this thread will provide a clue
that statement can neither be confirmed nor denied
I propose that the US builds a dome that covers 48 continental states, covers it with dirt, and pretend we're all underground. That'd be soo cool...
Victor
We should just spread the rumor that we left.Originally posted by psycho-
I propose that the US builds a dome that covers 48 continental states, covers it with dirt, and pretend we're all underground. That'd be soo cool...
Put a big "For Sale" sign on the dirt for realism.
TheLoneGunman, the TheLoneGunman logo, these smarmy posts, the mess in his house, and his silly ebay auctions, among others, are registered trademarks and/or registered service marks and/or associated works of TheLoneGunman in the United States and other countries. Other parties' trademarks or service marks are the property of their respective owners and should be treated as such.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Last night I watched the news from Washington, the capitolWe should just spread the rumor that we left.
Put a big "For Sale" sign on the dirt for realism.
The Russians escaped while we weren’t watching them, like Russians will
Now we’ve got all this room, we’ve even got the moon
And I hear the U.S.S.R. will be open soon
As vacation land for lawyers in love
My two cents have been spent already, waiting for the government to pay me some more...
Originally Posted by InfiniteNothing
Here's the reason why the US government needs to spend money on high tech "pie in the sky" projects.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/590201.asp?0dm=L16QT
Evidently, with a software program, any country with cell phone technology can use their cell towers as a radar to shoot down stealth planes.
This is what happens when you don't push the boundaries of research. Since commercial technology is so fast, it will catch up to military technology in times unheard of prior to the computer age (1980's).
Can't say whether missle defense is worth the money, but its not like the Dems are against just missle defense. The Dems, and the world, are against any new military projects. That way, American and foriegn corporations can develop commercial technologies to defeat existing US military superiority.
Other countries can just use off the shelf commercial applications to gain military parity with the US.
Ken,
I think you've got it backwards. Looks to me like Nigeria can shoot down one of our stealth bombers for a 50,000$ Stinger shoulder-fired missile. Is it still a good idea to buy them at 1 billion or so a pop? How much do you really think a missile defense would cost? Wouldnt you rather have a tax cut or funding for 'faith-based' social services or free guns for everyone (I'm assuming that youre kind of right wing, Ken)? Sure we could probably build it eventually, but do we want to spend that much money (and make no mistake, it will cost an incredible amount of money) for a huge white elephant? It's your money, right Ken?
keep in mind too, that we have no defense against an Armageddon type asteroid - which again, while seems remote, only needs to happen once. Exploring a missle defense in the long run helps develop the tech needed for such a possibility. But then, I think we should have funded the Delta Clipper, and worked up an Orion class space ship AGES ago.
I want off this planet, dammit.
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature
"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes
Man, where have you been? All we have to do is send a spunky, tough driller and his ragged band of misfits up in a space shit and drill into the thing...Originally posted by LPM
keep in mind too, that we have no defense against an Armageddon type asteroid - which again, while seems remote, only needs to happen once. Exploring a missle defense in the long run helps develop the tech needed for such a possibility. But then, I think we should have funded the Delta Clipper, and worked up an Orion class space ship AGES ago.
I want off this planet, dammit.
sheesh, get with the times, man!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
~Reality is an illusion~ 
Bookmarks