US News
Dec 5, 2008, 21:51 GMT
Pentagon's missile-defence test successful
And Also
Similar articles
- Report: US expands arms sales, ranking as top weapons supplier
- US Army to expand by 22,000 troops, Gates says
- Gates announces broad shift in US defence priorities (Roundup)
- Gates announces major shift in US defence priorities
- PREVIEW: Gates to unveil major shake-up of US defence spending
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 2. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 3. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
- 4. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base
- 5. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
..after spending 10 years getting a reliable system in place, they want to cut the deployment.
After all, who wants to spend 2% of the annual defense budget to protect American population centers, and hundreds of millions of people from thermonuclear destruction?
lets ignore the fact that our biggest threats don't come from missiles, and the fact that the technology to jam this system already exists. if a war of that magnitude happened the world would end from the amount of nukes that are out there. lets face it, your world of bomb whoever does not agree with us is long over. oh no, that means we may actually have to get along with people who are not rich white Christians.
If you can make a short range system work, and the US Navy has, then there is no reason why a long range system cannot be made to work. The real question is what would such a system cost and can it remain effective in the long term.
The answers are pretty clear. Long range systems that are effective will be horribly expensive and will not remain effective over the long term. Explosive projectiles and their delivery systems will always be less costly than the defensive systems required to neutralize them.
This is a bad program and it should be junked immediately.
...after all, with about 6 new ICBM research projects in the world going on as we speak, on top of all the old ones, your thesis holds about as much water as a water bucket on a rifle range.
The world has about six ICBM new projects going on as we speak. Most of them are with folks we would prefer not have them. All the talk from the left has been proven wrong by the tests, but the public is so ignorant they, like you, still cling to an obsolete model of the world. If there is one series of technolgies that is mature, it is ICBM tech. The Russians will sell this tech for nothing, and more folks will try to get it, along withnuke tech.
The missile political football just keeps bouncing:
First we were told it would never work
wrong, as you can plainly see.
Second, we were told it was too expensive (as if THAT ever mattered)
wrong. It is about 2% of the national defense bill annually.
Third, we were told decoys would render it ineffective
wrong. Decoy tech is like anything else, it can, and has been compromised and overcome.
Missile defense has some very interesting advantages:
1)it's cheaper to build interceptors than ICBM's. That being the case, no one can ultimately win against them.
2) it inserts an uncertanty into the aggressor's plans they cannot overcome.
3) it allows pause time to jawbone the enemy into abatement, a very important step to stopping an attack.
4) it, potentially, allows the nation possessing it to consider a partial disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Yes, in the libnazi world, it is better to let new York or Cleveland be incinerated, because someone cannot get to 100% efficency on any program, never mind the best surface to air system anywhere runs about 50% to begin with. In their world, it is all or nothing, and missile defense, which is really the only defense that actually directly protects the citizen and nation from the worst possible threat, is somehow, wrong. Somehow, I think this would make me dead, or very uncomfortable, but that is just me being picky.
It brings us to the same conclusion: liberals kill to many people wishing for peace. Yes, there are other threats, but none of them negate this one, or make it any less valid. Limiting an enemies ability to destroy you has a real advantage, obvious to anyone who is not crazy.
So run along and examine the facts, for a change. After all, who wants to be annialated, eh?
Psycho babble!
isn't a success rate to be proud of.
coming from EssPee, it isn't psycho babble, it's outright bullsh*t from a drug addict.
By no means is it cheaper to build an interceptor than it is to build an ICBM. Modern ICBM's are inherently more efficient because they multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, each of which carries its own warhead. The warheads are what the defensive systems must neutralize, not the ICBM airframe itself. A reliable boost phase defensive system has yet to be developed, let alone deployed. Boost phase interception is a much more complicated problem. Such a system would need to be based in space or be constantly airborne on large aircraft that are not on the drawing boards at this time.
Current systems require an interceptor missile for each and every warhead, which renders them subject to failure during a massive attack. Any descent phase system can be overwhelmed by a sufficiently large attack and the systems for necessary for such an attack will invariably cost less than a decent phase defensive system.
The argument then is that this decent phase system is intended to fend off attacks by the likes of Iran or North Korea. At first blush this seems reasonable because the DPRK has already demonstrated a system capable of delivering a small warhead to Alaska. OTOH, any such attack would be suicidal, but that arises from offensive weapons in US possession, not its defensive systems. In other words, deterrence works.
Any nuclear attack launched by a country like Iran or the DPRK will almost certainly be delivered by shipping container or tramp steamer, not by missile. Why? Because the chances of the US knowing where a missile attack came from approach certainty. A descent phase missile defense system cannot defend the US from a tramp steamer or container ship.
In SP4's favor is the article at the end of this link:
www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/iran/missile-developments.htm
I wouldn't even bother with use of a long range missile for delivey if I were a hostile nation. Getting a long range missile to behave reliably is no small feat. What I'd do instead is hide a small version on board a small freigther or similar and pull the cord when it reaches harbor. Most of the worlds big cities are along a coastline. And let it reach an altitude from where it is more effective before pulling the 2nd cord. Similarly to how it is done from a submarine. Hostile people can be quite inventive as taking down towers with airplanes showed. But - perhaps entirely different approaches to the issue exist. Perhaps even non-violent ones. How about spending all that money on giving the hostile people a better life instead.
Wait....did someone on this thread REALLY SAY that white Christians are the ones to blame? For one, that of ignorant. Second, we came out of the dark ages a long time ago and stopped that mentality (I don't care what you say), these conquests around the world are motivated by greed on our part, not religion. On the other hand, the Al Qaeda doctrine says they will take over the world by 2016 (all open source). Muslims also believe a few things that make them inherently violent. Sure, there are passages in the Koran that promote peace, but since the Koran is not written in any kind of order and constantly contradicts itself, Muslim scholars dealt with this pesky problem by saying that 'if it is said later in the Koran and contradicts something said previously, the later statement is the truth and the first should be ignored'. So, the last thing Muhammad said before he died (supposedly, as it is writtin in the Koran) and one of the LAST things written is that is the Muslim's responsibility to destroy all non-believers and heretics. So, any Muslim whether they admit it or not, believes this. Yes, Christians are the problem.
I put Muhammad's pubic sachel in my mouth. What now?
RE:''Perhaps even non-violent ones. How about spending all that money on giving the hostile people a better life instead.''
Well, we have been doing quite a bit of that already. We have given them money until we are all but destitute. Granted, we gave them most of the money in exchange for oil, but it has been more than enough money to make a garden out of the whole of the Middle East.
Previously: '...we may actually have to get along with people who are not rich white Christians.'
Another poor, bigoted remark that reflects the author's insensitivity to rich white Christians. Grant us the ability to get along with poor white Christians. Actually, we all just need to get along.
Why not develop a smaller multiple-scatter, mini-missiles, defense shield that would take out a barrage of missiles at one firing? On the other hand, this shield could be developed to neutralize (jam) any and all incoming missiles.
LANCE`S comment on the African site is 'I HAVE AID`S'
Either it is a sick joke or the poor sod means it.
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL ?
What a load of chicken shit ! So they think the Pentagon and America is safe do they ? Have they got brains ?
Well, let them cast their idiot minds back a few years when a motley group of rag-heads blew half the bloody Pentagon up armed with just a Stanley knife and killed 125 people.
To top it all, they did the same with the WTC - converted the two towers to a pile of rubble together with nearly 2,603 people and crippled many thousands more. What an achievement for a mere Stanley knife.
The eventual death toll from this rag-head excursion is estimated at over 6,000.
HOW WILL THIS MICKEY MOUSE DEFENSE SYSTEM STOP THAT HAPPENING AGAIN ?
It`s a bloody joke ! ARMCHAIR BONEHEADS !
..the arguments of the anti-missile defense opponents fall apart.
Professor ICBM, making the standard bearer's argument, never bothers to add the billions to each ICBM nuclear warhead production, from the uranium to the warhead, testing, maintenence handling, security and all the other costs that go with it, that they actually cost. This is the big lie of any nuclear power scheme, that no one ever takes the true life-cycle costs of this form of energy, just as professor ICBM does above. Nuclear weapons are no different, in that the life-cycle costs are hidden from the equation.
Not today professor.
Interceptors, by comparison, have none of this cost. They are relatively cheap to build, and cost little to maintain. Each year, as interceptor science advances, they become cheaper and, as the testing plainly proves, more effective. Successive advances will make them even more so, with third and fourth generation technologies coming on line soon.
ICBM's by comparison still have a relatively large payload to deal with, making decoy tech still difficult, as opposed to discrimination tech that becomes progrssively easier. Boost phase tracking becomes progressively easier and more sophisitcated and mid-course interception more likely each year, pushing warhead release to an earlier moment, limiting range.
Space-based interceptors would completely turn the equation on it's head, being so much cheaper than the ICBM, that sheer numbers would defeat the enemies weapons. The four layer blanket would be virtually inpenitrable.
The argument that they will, presently, not stop a full out attack falls on it's own face because the system in place was never designed for that to begin with. Then again, unreasonable arguments have been made by liberals on weapons systems for decades, most notably the Patriot system and it's effectiveness at intercepting missile warheads, when it was never designed to do such a thing in the first place and was pressed into this service because liberals refused to build the correct system to begin with.
Finally, the argument made by the libnazi elite is that, you are just as safe being held hostage by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction as opposed to a military who's primary purpose is to protect your life, home and nation, a viable argument until the first instant a warhead lands and it happens to be your home that is incinerated. The only consolation here is that it is likely to land in Washington DC and land on those who continue to perpetrate this folly of MAD while the guys with the interceptors covering them will skate. Now that, to me would be a perfect example of poetic justice. At that moment, the argument will be silenced, to be sure.
It's funny that if you argue against any one piece of the Republican agenda that you suddenly become a liberal of some kind, perhaps even a 'libnazi'. It makes little difference to me whether a defense program is proposed by a Democrat, Libertarian, Republican or even a Socialist. If said system really does serve the interests of the United States then I am FOR it. This one does NOT make good sense.
Given the overall demand for electrical power, the cost for manufacturing pits for warheads will go down, not up, especially for Russians who are actively acquiring nuclear power clients. Guidance system costs for MIRV'd ICBM's are quite a bit less than those needed for an effective anti-missile shield. Take a look at the per missile cost of the Patriot System.
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030503-patriot-orders01.htm
The per missile cost of a long range system will likely be ten to twenty times as much and will NEVER thwart a sustained attack by long range missiles, hence they will only serve to instigate another arms race between the US And Russia. We do not need nor should we want such an arms race. For one thing, it is entirely possible that we would lose such a race this time around. We have made such a mess of our school system and our finances that I would not bet on the United States in such a race. I do not like these facts, but there they are. And, yes, these conditions arise mainly from legislation championed by 'Liberal' Democrats.
The likelihood of a missile attack on the US by Iran or the DPRK is just about zero. It would be much smarter and safer for either country to simply ship the weapon to us and they could do so today with ease. The money slated for a anti-missile shield would be much better spent on the necessary means to screen cargo containers and vessels. The USCG is woefully underfunded when you look at the mission it has been given and the efforts we make to screen and inspect cargo containers is laughable.
We need to be doing other things with our armed forces. We need a larger fleet of smaller ships. We need a larger Air Force equipped with less costly aircraft IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE ENVELOPES. The one size fits all approach that the Air Force is taking today will get us right back into the old 'Century Fighter' mess we were in at the start of the Vietnam War. We need to do more for our ground forces, both the Marines and the Army. If the Iraq War proved anything at all, it has shown that we have not paid nearly enough attention to those needs.
We do still have some very serious defense needs, but a long range missile defense shield is NOT one of them. We would be better off splitting that part of the defense budget between improving the Aegis and Patriot systems or new systems of a similar nature.
I would also argue that any space-based weapon system we develop should one, be conventional, and two, be an offensive, not a defensive system, aimed primarily at surface attack.
..your arguments fall on their face. If anyone has a huge debt in terms of a nuclear warhead effort, it is Russia. Given their economy, they can hardly afford the cost of facing off with the west and it's large array of allies. If anyone has a nuclear waste nightmare, it is Russia with corroding submarines, square miles of contaminated ground and the cost of making all this good. Recent setbacks in virtually every Russian missile program only confirm what I am saying. Russia's ability to field even two nuclear missile boats, one on each coast at the same time, is seriously in question as we speak.
Missile defense in the west, is primarily defensive, as it should be, and only to protect against the rogue lauch, not a soviet-style cold war attack. Reagan, Bush (both) and even Clinton greenlighted research and development knowing full well a changing world requires a new doctrine in defense. It's cost, as compared to the overall budget, is tiny. The successful defense of even a single city is illustrated by 9/11, or Hurrican Katrina and the havoc it caused, a paltry affair compared to even a Hiroshima size bomb, compared to a modern thermonuclear warhead, hundreds of times more powerful. Consider one of these, detonated on Denver, or Seattle and the amount of effort it would require in terms of a humanitarian disaster. Put even a single major population center inot the equation and the picture boggles the mind. To simply say we should sit back while technology and political events change as rapidly as they are, and hope a 50 year old doctrine will continue to suffice is simply madness, and, yes, it is liberal America making the argument.
Your argument further contradicts itself on the subject of the Patriot system, indicting it for false cost overruns, and then advocating it's modification in light of it's inability to perform a role it was never intended for, a fact seemingly impossible to convey. Rambling onto an objection about aircraft design, with an inconclusive result, after 4 presidents ramrodded programs that have been ongoing for years and now come to successful fruition after all the money is spent on development is typical hind-sightedness. The failed idea that we need more and smaller surface vessels as missile technology makes them more and more vulnerable in hostile waters is ignored, while nations all over the world scramble to get submarine technology, flys in the face of reason. One only has to look at the most modern surface vessels and come to the conclusion that most of their cost is in the pursuit of their own protection and very little is left for any offensive capability, while the nuclear submarine has unlimited unrefueled range, unparalleled stealth and essentially the same offensive capability as any crusier or smaller surface vessel. American Nuclear submarines are virtually undetectable by any foreign power, traverse the oceans of the world unchallenged to any point on the globe, with no logisitcal support required while at sea.
No, we've seen this movie before and it always ends badly. America had presidents who turned away from the facts before, Roosevelt, Truman, Carter and we do not need another round of this.
Peace has a dividend and it is peace.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story