After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure, as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in the
election this year.
What a waste. Even though test results cast serious doubt on the efficacy of
the system Bush authorized construction of the system at a cost date of $80
BILLION and a projected additional expenditure of at least $50 BILLION.
This waste is on top of the $200 BILLION wasted so far in the unnecessary
war in Iraq. Costs are continuing to mount at the rate $1 BILLION dollars
per DAY.
In 2003, a test of another part of the system, based on Navy ships, also
failed.
Before Wednesday's test, the Missile Defense Agency had conducted eight
tests with interceptor vehicles, scoring hits in five under carefully
controlled conditions. Some critics of the agency, which has spent more than
$80 billion since 1985, say the entire test program is unrealistic and that
the tests have been scripted.
--
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 09:21:44 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure, as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 10:39:41 AM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:cKhwd.806$RH4.691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure,
as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it can
only protect against a few missiles.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 10:52:24 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:cKhwd.806$RH4.691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure,
as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
If "launch sites" are part of the system which
will eventually work, why not build them now?
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
I can think of nothing better to spend
taxpayer money on.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it can
only protect against a few missiles.
It's a start, and you have to start
somewhere.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 11:49:36 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:cKhwd.806$RH4.691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure,
as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
If "launch sites" are part of the system which
will eventually work, why not build them now?
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
I can think of nothing better to spend
taxpayer money on.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it can
only protect against a few missiles.
It's a start, and you have to start
somewhere.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to
where it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container, hold
of a ship, or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense System
being constructed.
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense Shield
is useless on it's face. The only way it could ever work would be if it
were a secret, but it would only be a secret once...
If you want real Defense against Rogue Nations with Nukes, we better
start invading and occupying every potential rogue on Earth, but where
would that lead except to isolation & odium?
This whole Star Wars thing is simply Welfare for Rocket Scientists ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 12:22:36 PM |
|
|
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1103219445.32831944adbbdf645a97322417b451ed@teranews...
Bob wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:cKhwd.806$RH4.691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure,
as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
If "launch sites" are part of the system which
will eventually work, why not build them now?
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
I can think of nothing better to spend
taxpayer money on.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it can
only protect against a few missiles.
It's a start, and you have to start
somewhere.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to where
it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container, hold of a ship,
or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense System being
constructed.
That sounds rational. Do you know what
irrational means?
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense Shield is
useless on it's face. The only way it could ever work would be if it were a
secret, but it would only be a secret once...
So you believe since we have difficulty
in thwarting some attacks we should stop
trying to thwart any attacks. Perhaps it's
you who is irrational.
If you want real Defense against Rogue Nations with Nukes, we better start
invading and occupying every potential rogue on Earth, but where would that
lead except to isolation & odium?
Don't need to invade, but we should
do something. On that we agree.
This whole Star Wars thing is simply Welfare for Rocket Scientists ;-)
So was proving the earth was not round :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 02:06:18 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1103219445.32831944adbbdf645a97322417b451ed@teranews...
Bob wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:cKhwd.806$RH4.691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BChwd.131340$7i4.18517@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
After a rocket carrying a mock warhead as a target was launched from
Kodiak,
Alaska, the interceptor, which was intended to go aloft 16 minutes later
and
home in on the target 100 miles over the earth, automatically shut down
because of "an unknown anomaly," according to the Missile Defense Agency
of
the Defense Department.
The last test of the interceptor, on Dec. 12, 2002, was also a failure,
as
the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, missed its
target by hundreds of miles and burned up in the atmosphere.
But shortly after that, President Bush ordered the Pentagon to proceed
with
initial deployment of a limited system, a goal that he campaigned on in
the
election this year.
What a waste.
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is, Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars" national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
If "launch sites" are part of the system which
will eventually work, why not build them now?
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
I can think of nothing better to spend
taxpayer money on.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it can
only protect against a few missiles.
It's a start, and you have to start
somewhere.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to where
it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container, hold of a ship,
or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense System being
constructed.
That sounds rational. Do you know what
irrational means?
Yeah, but nuclear attacks aren't really the province of rational minds.
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense Shield is
useless on it's face. The only way it could ever work would be if it were a
secret, but it would only be a secret once...
So you believe since we have difficulty
in thwarting some attacks we should stop
trying to thwart any attacks. Perhaps it's
you who is irrational.
No. I just don't see the necessity for something which we managed to
get thru the Cold War without, especially if it's going to cost hundreds
of billions of dollars. There are so many ways that the US could be
attacked that trying to stop this one (which only a state actor could
mount in any event) has a "Little Dutch Boy" character, dontcha think?
If you want real Defense against Rogue Nations with Nukes, we better start
invading and occupying every potential rogue on Earth, but where would that
lead except to isolation & odium?
Don't need to invade, but we should
do something. On that we agree.
Maybe. But I want to spread goodwill among the people of the world, and
fight for justice thru moral conviction, as we did against the Apartheid
Govt of South Africa. You probably want to assassinate leaders you
don't like...
LOL
This whole Star Wars thing is simply Welfare for Rocket Scientists ;-)
So was proving the earth was not round :)
Ha! A Greek Scientist proved the Earth was round about 2000 years ago.
No one paid him to do it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 12:10:16 PM |
|
|
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1103219445.32831944adbbdf645a97322417b451ed@teranews...
Bob wrote:
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to
where it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container, hold
of a ship, or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense System
being constructed.
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense Shield
is useless on it's face.
By the same token, it's useless to arm our police with handguns, since they
are useless in terms of stopping a nuclear bomb hidden inside a cargo
container.
Defendario is a good example of why we American People don't allow the
Democrats to be in charge of national defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 12:52:22 PM |
|
|
wrote...
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to
where it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container, hold
of a ship, or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense System
being constructed.
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense Shield
is useless on it's face.
By the same token, it's useless to arm our police with handguns, since they
are useless in terms of stopping a nuclear bomb hidden inside a cargo
container.
Guns aren't advertised as being effective against nuclear bombs.
Defendario is a good example of why we American People don't allow the
Democrats to be in charge of national defense.
You give a better example of inability to construct a valid analogy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 12:57:46 PM |
|
|
"Vendor Neutral" <neutral@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2ba368d1aac202989fa9@news.verizon.net...
LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com wrote...
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
Good point, Bobster! Now, if I were an "irrational person in charge of
nuclear weapons" I would want to make Damned Sure that my weapon got to
where it was going. That means hiding it inside a cargo container,
hold
of a ship, or some other villainous place -- to avoid the Defense
System
being constructed.
There is no way we can stop such an attack, so the Missle Defense
Shield
is useless on it's face.
By the same token, it's useless to arm our police with handguns, since
they
are useless in terms of stopping a nuclear bomb hidden inside a cargo
container.
Guns aren't advertised as being effective against nuclear bombs.
And the Star Wars missile defense system isn't advertised as being effective
against nuclear bombs hidden inside a cargo container.
Do you think you have a point you would like to share with us, VN??
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:02:28 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Something from another, albeit related post
<SNIP>
Hey, you idjit Troll. Reply to the posted post >:-(
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OrangeSFO" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:16:36 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
That's "nookyooler".
There have been two atomic attacks in history.
Who made them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:47:09 PM |
|
|
"OrangeSFO" <turgorsfo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103231796.616540.12450@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
Never underestimate what irrational people
in charge of nuclear weapons will do.
That's "nookyooler".
Huh?
There have been two atomic attacks in history.
Who made them?
The United States of America.
Do you disagree with what I originally
said?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:25:04 PM |
|
|
no@email.address wrote...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
If "launch sites" are part of the system which
will eventually work, why not build them now?
Because it's like building the chassis for the car before you know
what the engine and frame will eventually look like. There's no
benefit to doing so, and it only makes the entire operation more
expensive.
Apparently, some wicked angel is whispering in Bush's ear that the
many problems yet to be solved will be solved very soon, and so he
might as well get started on the launching platforms.
A more rational person would conserve taxpayer money | debt, since
building the launching platforms only tells your enemy where they'll
be without providing any defense whatsoever.
--
Having a productive time online is largely a matter of quickly
learning what, and who, to completely ignore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 11:51:48 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing
when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is,
Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars"
national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
It's not "totally unproven", as I just proved above.
Far from it. It's close to working perfectly.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it
can
only protect against a few missiles.
That's all it needs to do - protect against a few missiles.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the
United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Prove it. Also, what are your credentials that make you feel you qualify
as an Official Mind Reader of North Korea's military strategists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 02:36:58 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hTiwd.1105243$Gx4.589580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Not at all. That's the whole point of such tests you see - find out
where
the bugs in the system are and then fix them. We did the same thing
when
Kennedy decided we should put a man on the Moon - test after test after
test, before finally implementing the system. The difference is,
Kennedy
was a Democrat while Bush is a Republican. Plus the "Star Wars"
national
defense program is much more useful to the American people than putting a
man on the Moon was.
Three cheers for the courage and foresight of President Bush!!!
You seem totally unaware of the fact that despite a total lack of evidence
that the system can work, Bush ordered launch sites to be built and
production contracts.
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
Spending a few billion on R& D may have some justification but deploying a
totally unproven system at a cost of $80 BILLION before tests prove it's
value is just a gross waste of tax payer money.
It's not "totally unproven", as I just proved above.
Far from it. It's close to working perfectly.
Even if the system works it does not provide meaningful protection from
countries like China or Russia. The Defense Dept. admits that at best it
can
only protect against a few missiles.
That's all it needs to do - protect against a few missiles.
Countries like N. Korea are not going to launch a few missiles at the
United
States because they realize it would only sting and antagonize the United
States and result in the total destruction of the N. Korean regime.
Prove it. Also, what are your credentials that make you feel you qualify
as an Official Mind Reader of North Korea's military strategists?
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake the
White House.
During the Cold War, a number of ultra-liberals said that if the Soviet
Union nuked the U.S., the U.S. should simply surrender because
retaliating against the USSR wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:20:59 PM |
|
|
wrote...
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake the
White House.
I smell someone who thinks Ann Coulter is on to something 'bout them
liberals.
During the Cold War, a number of ultra-liberals said that if the Soviet
Union nuked the U.S., the U.S. should simply surrender because
retaliating against the USSR wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.
So? Ultra-hawks argued for years that we should preemptively strike
and destroy the USSR, and take the few shots they'd muster in return
as a cheap price to pay.
In short: Arguing from the extremes doesn't mean anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:24:44 PM |
|
|
"Vendor Neutral" <neutral@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2bc64798398aad989fab@news.verizon.net...
sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote...
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake the
White House.
I smell someone who thinks Ann Coulter is on to something 'bout them
liberals.
Get a clue - she is. Has been for years, in fact. Skewers those losers
quite regularly on the college campuses, in fact. The Left on those
campuses scream like stuck hogs, trying to deny her her free speech rights.
The Left in America are today's neofascists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:48:06 PM |
|
|
Vendor Neutral wrote:
wrote...
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake the
White House.
I smell someone who thinks Ann Coulter is on to something 'bout them
liberals.
During the Cold War, a number of ultra-liberals said that if the Soviet
Union nuked the U.S., the U.S. should simply surrender because
retaliating against the USSR wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.
So? Ultra-hawks argued for years that we should preemptively strike
and destroy the USSR, and take the few shots they'd muster in return
as a cheap price to pay.
In short: Arguing from the extremes doesn't mean anything.
I would like all the liberals who oppose missile defenses to take the
following pledge: In the event that the U.S. is actually nuked by a
rogue state like North Korea or Iran, these liberals will
enthusiastically support a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike.
Unilaterally and immediately. With no prior U.N. approval.
Because I think that if the crunch really came, these liberals who
oppose missile defense would oppose retaliation as well. Their allergy
to anything "nuclear," commercial or military, is a matter of public record.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:03:43 PM |
|
|
wrote...
Vendor Neutral wrote:
wrote...
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake the
White House.
I smell someone who thinks Ann Coulter is on to something 'bout them
liberals.
During the Cold War, a number of ultra-liberals said that if the Soviet
Union nuked the U.S., the U.S. should simply surrender because
retaliating against the USSR wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.
So? Ultra-hawks argued for years that we should preemptively strike
and destroy the USSR, and take the few shots they'd muster in return
as a cheap price to pay.
In short: Arguing from the extremes doesn't mean anything.
I would like all the liberals who oppose missile defenses to take the
following pledge: In the event that the U.S. is actually nuked by a
rogue state like North Korea or Iran, these liberals will
enthusiastically support a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike.
Unilaterally and immediately. With no prior U.N. approval.
You conveniently forget how unanimous the support for our action
against Afghanistan was.
Because I think that if the crunch really came, these liberals who
oppose missile defense would oppose retaliation as well.
That's because you're a flake, talking out of his *****. There is no
basis at all for casting that as a mainstream liberal perspective.
Caio.
--
"Having a productive time online is largely a matter of quickly
learning what, and who, to completely ignore."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:23:38 PM |
|
|
Steven L. wrote:
Vendor Neutral wrote:
sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote...
Besides, North Korea knows that sooner or later the Dems will retake
the White House.
I smell someone who thinks Ann Coulter is on to something 'bout them
liberals.
During the Cold War, a number of ultra-liberals said that if the
Soviet Union nuked the U.S., the U.S. should simply surrender because
retaliating against the USSR wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.
So? Ultra-hawks argued for years that we should preemptively strike
and destroy the USSR, and take the few shots they'd muster in return
as a cheap price to pay.
In short: Arguing from the extremes doesn't mean anything.
I would like all the liberals who oppose missile defenses to take the
following pledge: In the event that the U.S. is actually nuked by a
rogue state like North Korea or Iran, these liberals will
enthusiastically support a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike. Unilaterally
and immediately. With no prior U.N. approval.
Because I think that if the crunch really came, these liberals who
oppose missile defense would oppose retaliation as well. Their allergy
to anything "nuclear," commercial or military, is a matter of public
record.
No Problem, Guv'ner ;-)
But we don't need a missle defense system to do that, do we?
Why waste billions to stop an attack which could be as easily made by
other means?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OrangeSFO" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 07:11:00 PM |
|
|
Steven L. wrote:
I would like all the liberals who oppose missile defenses to take the
following pledge: In the event that the U.S. is actually nuked by a
rogue state like North Korea or Iran, these liberals will
enthusiastically support a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike.
Unilaterally and immediately. With no prior U.N. approval.
Sounds fair.
Because I think that if the crunch really came, these liberals who
oppose missile defense would oppose retaliation as well.
You think wrong.
And WHAT "liberals." In exactly WHICH branch of government are these
"liberals" wielding such power???
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Starrett" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:03:06 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
John Starrett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:29:30 PM |
|
|
"John Starrett" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message
news:E8udnYRnkNFwalzcRVn-vw@nmt.edu...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which
can intercept incoming missiles.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have so
far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled setting.
Not at all. They know those facts too. The ongoing funding for the Star
Wars program is being used to COMBINE all those skills we already possess
into one system.
We did much the same when we decided to undertake our massive federal
funding to put a man on the Moon. We already possessed most of the skills
needed. The task was to put them all together into one system, which is
what we eventually did. After a whole host of failures, needless to say.
And Reagan's "Star Wars" program is MUCH more useful and necessary than
merely putting a man on the Moon.
The program will continue to move forward, despite you naysayers. Your
defeatist ilk probably thought we'd never put a man on the Moon either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:37:32 PM |
|
|
wrote...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
It's not correct.
1) We can't reliably distinguish incoming missles from decoys. There
is virtually zero chance that we'll ever be able to do that.
2) Introduce decoys, and scenarios are easy to create where all live
missiles get through. And we won't even hit all the decoys.
3) Introduce decoys, and scenarios are easy to create where all live
missiles get through. And we won't even hit all the decoys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
"Vendor Neutral" <neutral@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2bca1c580aafef989fac@news.verizon.net...
jstarret@sdc.org wrote...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
Yes, but we ALREADY DO successfully track incoming missiles. We've
possessed THAT skill for well over a decade now, in fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:54:18 PM |
|
|
Vendor Neutral wrote:
jstarret@sdc.org wrote...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
It's not correct.
1) We can't reliably distinguish incoming missles from decoys. There
is virtually zero chance that we'll ever be able to do that.
The missile defense system is intended to do precisely that. It's a
basic requirement. So we can only assume that the designers are working
on it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd.htm
Now since that is a requirement, then at some point, that requirement
will need to be tested by actual test.
Unless it passes that test, the system will not reach operational
capability.
The only way you can know if the system will not meet this requirement
is if you were present at the design reviews. And I very much doubt
that you were.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendor Neutral" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:19:07 PM |
|
|
wrote...
Vendor Neutral wrote:
jstarret@sdc.org wrote...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
It's not correct.
1) We can't reliably distinguish incoming missles from decoys. There
is virtually zero chance that we'll ever be able to do that.
The missile defense system is intended to do precisely that. It's a
basic requirement.
It was a "basic requirement" of the most recent test that the seeker
missle leave the silo, too. It didn't do that, though.
If the attacker fires three missles, one with live payload and two
with dummy payload, tell them apart for us.
So we can only assume that the designers are working
on it.
People are working on cold fusion, too, as your argument collapses.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd.htm
Now since that is a requirement, then at some point, that requirement
will need to be tested by actual test.
True. And the most recent test failed, as tests are wont to do.
Unless it passes that test, the system will not reach operational
capability.
True. If you're in your 30s, it won't happen in your lifetime.
The only way you can know if the system will not meet this requirement
is if you were present at the design reviews. And I very much doubt
that you were.
No, I wasn't, and yes, that's the only way to _know_. As a
computational problem, however, it is very similar to other
computation problems. And I know a good deal about those kinds of
problems.
I can't talk seriously with anybody who says what you say about
liberals. So, toodles.
--
Having a productive time online is largely a matter of quickly
learning what, and who, to completely ignore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 04:35:11 PM |
|
|
"Vendor Neutral" <neutral@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2bd3a4e16157b0989fae@news.verizon.net...
sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote...
Unless it passes that test, the system will not reach operational
capability.
True. If you're in your 30s, it won't happen in your lifetime.
Only if his life ends by his early 40's. The system will probably be fully
operational within 5 years from now. Maybe sooner.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 05:01:39 PM |
|
|
Vendor Neutral wrote:
wrote...
Vendor Neutral wrote:
jstarret@sdc.org wrote...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which can
intercept incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
"Knowing" and "doing" are two different things.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
It's not correct.
1) We can't reliably distinguish incoming missles from decoys. There
is virtually zero chance that we'll ever be able to do that.
The missile defense system is intended to do precisely that. It's a
basic requirement.
It was a "basic requirement" of the most recent test that the seeker
missle leave the silo, too. It didn't do that, though.
Virtually every new system has had failed tests. Most of the time these
failures are due to some fairly minor problem--a stuck valve or a bug in
the software. There's no reason to believe that this particular failed
test identified a fundamental problem with the design that requires
either major modifications or cancellation. Those things do happen--the
F-105 fighter-bomber had to be majorly redesigned following the
disappointing performance of the prototype. But most of the time it's a
relatively minor thing. The first prototype F-14 crashed, nearly
killing its pilot, due to a faulty valve.
So we can only assume that the designers are working
on it.
People are working on cold fusion, too, as your argument collapses.
There's a vast difference between theoretical research and engineering
design. AFAIK, the algorithms to distinguish decoys, chaff, flares,
etc. do exist. I'm not an expert on it, but I know it's not a
theoretical research problem like cold fusion.
If this discussion has come down to the issue of what is the state of
the art in target discrimination algorithms, then I'm afraid we've
reached an impasse because none of us here seems to be a mathematician
skilled in that stuff. I defer to the experts who are working on the
problem.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Wisely Implementing Reagan's "Star Wars" Defense Program |
16 Dec 2004 03:59:07 PM |
|
|
John Starrett wrote:
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Wow, only your first sentence, and you're wrong already!
1) We already know we can successfully track incoming missiles.
2) We already know we can successfully launch outgoing missiles which
can intercept incoming missiles.
3) We already know we can successfully arm outgoing missiles with
sufficient explosives to damage and destroy incoming missiles.
If this is true, then it is probably news to the US military, who have
so far only done this successfully *once* in an extremely controlled
setting. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then post it.
As an engineer, I can tell you that for a threat as varied as the one
the missile defense system needs to deal with, it will require dozens of
succesful tests, not just one or two. Now hopefully some of those can
involve simulated components and/or mathematical computer models.
It will probably be just like the other components of our strategic
forces: Periodic upgrades, and continual testing throughout the
operational lifetime of the system.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
