• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Considering National Missile Defense is unlikely to ever be "useful"

Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.
 
Yea...adding to programs that "don't work"....Well we all know how successful and well-researched the abstinence only programs are..hence they received a budget increase as well.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
No. It should get more govt money 🙂
<---- Lives in area with lots of defense contractors 😀

Can you imagine the long term savings/benefits that would come from investing in our infrastructure? Hell can you imagine the long term savings/benefits that would come from investing in places like North Korea or Africa?
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.



IF it makes you feel better, its budget should get trimmed this year.

But also imagine all the things that were damned expensive and did not work, but now are common things we would hate to do without.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.



IF it makes you feel better, its budget should get trimmed this year.

But also imagine all the things that were damned expensive and did not work, but now are common things we would hate to do without.
Examples . . .

 
I think it would be useful and working... plus, military research is a big advantage for the US. There are missile defense programs among other countries, too.
 
Apparently, you did not hear the President. He is cutting programs that are not useful or not working. A useful OR working NMD does not exist. It's merely a boondoggle for DOD contractors and states like TX and AK. I would rather give those states more money to educate their youths (trust me they need it badly) than burn billions digging holes in the permafrost.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Apparently, you did not hear the President. He is cutting programs that are not useful or not working. A useful OR working NMD does not exist. It's merely a boondoggle for DOD contractors and states like TX and AK. I would rather give those states more money to educate their youths (trust me they need it badly) than burn billions digging holes in the permafrost.

He's cutting his missile defense system?

At the current rate it doesn't even work 1% of the time!!!

I would personally love to see 1/3 of the military budget moved to education and take a more college style approach to educating our youth.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Apparently, you did not hear the President. He is cutting programs that are not useful or not working. A useful OR working NMD does not exist. It's merely a boondoggle for DOD contractors and states like TX and AK. I would rather give those states more money to educate their youths (trust me they need it badly) than burn billions digging holes in the permafrost.

I would guess that he would assume that it is useful and a program in development probably would not be working right now, much like plenty of other types of research. If he said those words, I would hope that he doesn't mean to cut all research and development of all types.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Apparently, you did not hear the President. He is cutting programs that are not useful or not working. A useful OR working NMD does not exist. It's merely a boondoggle for DOD contractors and states like TX and AK. I would rather give those states more money to educate their youths (trust me they need it badly) than burn billions digging holes in the permafrost.

I think it's ridiculous that he deployed the system so early. I consider it to still be in the research and development phase.

I think we can give states money to educate their youth as well as fund national missile defense research. I guess I'm just not a luddite. Would you have approved or disapproved of NASA back in the days of the space race?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.

air travel
helocopters




IF it makes you feel better, its budget should get trimmed this year.

But also imagine all the things that were damned expensive and did not work, but now are common things we would hate to do without.
Examples . . .


Air travel is one...
helocopters took quite a long a time to perfect and are quite valuable today. history is riddled with things that got invented/acomplished despite the naysayers.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.


by your logic, they should have stopped researching computers in the 1940's, those things where big as rooms and really slow! oh no!

anything drastically new takes time to be perfected. make a prototype, test, review errors, improve.
 
Its been proven time and again throwing money into education isnt the solution. So, to say the money should be spent on education isnecesarrily saying it will make for smarter students.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its been proven time and again throwing money into education isnt the solution. So, to say the money should be spent on education isnecesarrily saying it will make for smarter students.

It's true that how you spend the money matters most, but some of the most effective solutions, such as giving K-12 teachers the preparatory time that they have in countries whose students consistently crush the US in international tests, do cost.

On the other hand, much of the money spent on material goods like computers, calculators, and textbooks is misdirected and could be better spent elsewhere.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.

While NMD would be a powerful offensive tool, I agree that it doesn't work. It's true that defense contracts are nice for those who get them--I worked on a Reagan era SDI contract--they're not as an effective long term investment in the economy as basic research or infrastructure.
 
One has to realize more and more rogue nations are gaining ballistic missle technology, some of it very advanced. A Missle Defense System shouldnt be completely ruled out as a waste.
Think of it as insurnace, albeit very, very expensive insurance.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush said he was dumping programs that "didn't work" or "not worth the expense."

Shouldn't NMD be at the top of the list considering:
1) it only works in rigged tests . . . and it's still batting less than .500 . . . assuming it gets out of the silo
2) it's damn expensive

I know the Bush administration isn't big on logic but seems like axing NMD would be obvious.

air travel
helocopters




IF it makes you feel better, its budget should get trimmed this year.

But also imagine all the things that were damned expensive and did not work, but now are common things we would hate to do without.
Examples . . .


Air travel is one...
helocopters took quite a long a time to perfect and are quite valuable today. history is riddled with things that got invented/acomplished despite the naysayers.

Helicopters were paid for by government money or private money? Maybe Halos is right in that private industry should be used to develope most of this stuff on their own with no government red tape. Would be much better and probably more cost effective. Free market driven maybe?

(doubtful as many wouldn't attempt it without pay, but worth a shot).

Edit: If the government should fund many worthwhile projects "completely" as this one, why not fund alternative energy "completely" and let's get rid of oil?

 
Originally posted by: Engineer

Helicopters were paid for by government money or private money? Maybe Halos is right in that private industry should be used to develope most of this stuff on their own with no government red tape. Would be much better and probably more cost effective. Free market driven maybe?

But if it were free market driven then it could also be sold to the countries against whom we need missile protection to protect them from our missiles.

[EDIT] hmm, come to think of it, the technology will be leaked eventually anyway by means of treason or espionage so . . .screw it. Privatize it. Maybe once the whole world has missile defense systems we can finally start to get rid of all our missiles and think up new ways of killing each other from far away.
 
Anyone who is in favor of the continuance of this 'Shore/Land-Based' Missle Defense System doesn't know squat about Balistic Missles, either Tacticle or Intercontinental types.

There are only 2 times that both are vulnerble to a defensive strike - that is in the first 30 or so seconds of the launch phase,
and for the ICBM there alone is a small window of opportunuty that is the 'Position & Deployment' phase - where either the individual or the multiple warheads are independently set on their re-entry course.
That's the small space in time when the deployment vehicle is in it's apex of flight, has positioned itself for target alignment,
and is 'spinning-up' the warhead (to only 1/3 of an RPM) for re-entry stabilization - in just a matter of seconds the platform separates from the payload, and that payload comes screaming down from some 700 miles in space to re-enter at hypersonic velocities,
that no ground based intercepter can either accurately locate or match trajectories with.

The most promising - and most likey to work, is the Space Based Kenetic Weapons System, know as 'Brilliant Pebbles' - the KeWe.
It deploys from a space based pod, or cluster of pods, uses satellite tracking at the boost phase to determine which group of pods will be closest to the intruder when the kill is needed to be made, selects, launches, and fires the propulsion system to drive the Kenetic Weapon into the intruder at several thousands of miles an hour at impact, tearing it apart. The impact/contact has to occur before the deployment of 'Chaffe' - the space debris equivalent of 'traffic cones' that are warhead mass simulators, that will be present by the dozens in the area of warhead deployment for the purpose of confusing radar and detection devices.
It takes sophisticated 'Black-Body' thermal analyzers to see the difference between a true warhead and a dummy that gives the same image to the viewers.

Here's a clue - the background radiant temperature of space is 3 degrees Celsius.
At instant of deployment all parts whether real or fake will have the same thermal image.
Only the true warhead - with sufficient resident thermal heat and mass will stay as a Thermal 'Hot-Spot' for more than a few seconds,
the dummies will begin loosing their heat to space faster, and be lost in the background radiation within 30 seconds.
That which cools the slowest is the real one - you have to: identify, sort, choose, launch, target, close distance, and strike.
Your window of functional opportunity is 30 seconds at best.

And you're driving down the freeway at 200 miles an hour looking for an address in an appartment complex -
you get no second chance if you drive past.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
One has to realize more and more rogue nations are gaining ballistic missle technology, some of it very advanced. A Missle Defense System shouldnt be completely ruled out as a waste.
Think of it as insurnace, albeit very, very expensive insurance.

Dude, that's like buying health insurance that only covers Ebola infections or car insurance that only pays if you get hit by Hubble telescope debris.

You cannot think of NMD as insurance when it:
1) isn't even close to working
2) a working (and effective) system would be prohibitively expensive to deploy

It makes FAR more sense to invest in the underlying science and possibly translational applications instead of the current waste in the name of propaganda. Curiously, Dubya has proposed cuts in the National Science Foundation, the NSF is largely responsible for funding basic research and development of talented researchers. The myopia (+/- astigmatism) of the Bush administration when it comes to science and technology is amazing.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Anyone who is in favor of the continuance of this 'Shore/Land-Based' Missle Defense System doesn't know squat about Balistic Missles, either Tacticle or Intercontinental types.

There are only 2 times that both are vulnerble to a defensive strike - that is in the first 30 or so seconds of the launch phase,
and for the ICBM there alone is a small window of opportunuty that is the 'Position & Deployment' phase - where either the individual or the multiple warheads are independently set on their re-entry course.
That's the small space in time when the deployment vehicle is in it's apex of flight, has positioned itself for target alignment,
and is 'spinning-up' the warhead (to only 1/3 of an RPM) for re-entry stabilization - in just a matter of seconds the platform separates from the payload, and that payload comes screaming down from some 700 miles in space to re-enter at hypersonic velocities,
that no ground based intercepter can either accurately locate or match trajectories with.

The most promising - and most likey to work, is the Space Based Kenetic Weapons System, know as 'Brilliant Pebbles' - the KeWe.
It deploys from a space based pod, or cluster of pods, uses satellite tracking at the boost phase to determine which group of pods will be closest to the intruder when the kill is needed to be made, selects, launches, and fires the propulsion system to drive the Kenetic Weapon into the intruder at several thousands of miles an hour at impact, tearing it apart. The impact/contact has to occur before the deployment of 'Chaffe' - the space debris equivalent of 'traffic cones' that are warhead mass simulators, that will be present by the dozens in the area of warhead deployment for the purpose of confusing radar and detection devices.
It takes sophisticated 'Black-Body' thermal analyzers to see the difference between a true warhead and a dummy that gives the same image to the viewers.

Here's a clue - the background radiant temperature of space is 3 degrees Celsius.
At instant of deployment all parts whether real or fake will have the same thermal image.
Only the true warhead - with sufficient resident thermal heat and mass will stay as a Thermal 'Hot-Spot' for more than a few seconds,
the dummies will begin loosing their heat to space faster, and be lost in the background radiation within 30 seconds.
That which cools the slowest is the real one - you have to: identify, sort, choose, launch, target, close distance, and strike.
Your window of functional opportunity is 30 seconds at best.

And you're driving down the freeway at 200 miles an hour looking for an address in an appartment complex -
you get no second chance if you drive past.



that was an awsome read, thanks for the insight. Sometimes this place is fascintating 🙂
 
Back
Top