Missile Fails in Test to Intercept Target

[b0mbrman]

<< so it misses once out of two, just shoot two prob solved. >>


That gives you only a 75% chance. I'd feel a lot safer with 90%+

 

[Kadarin]

<< missile defense system won't work >>



IMHO whether it does or not is irrelevent. What matters is that the technology is pursued, and may lead to other things. In any case, it's better to spend money on this than on farm or tobacco subsidies...

 

[SuperTool]

I think we need to spend more money on missile defence. CA is in a real tech slump, so we need as much tech spending as we can over here.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I think this is evidence that Bush eats feces.

 

[Elledan]

Oops... Washington DC has just been vaporized... ah well, at least we hit the previous nuke.

 

[sandorski]

It probably will lead to some kind of technological advance, but that money could be put to better use and have better spinoff technologies elsewhere. A permanent scientific/research base on the moon for example.

 

[Hammer]

This is a major screw up. Cruise missiles we're supposed to intercept (our Arleigh Burke class cruiser do it already). Its ballistic missiles which the NMD is supposed to intercept and those are much harder to stop due to their speed.

 

[Amused]

<< If someone wants to bomb the US they won't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a system that will leave a trail back to them. They will rent a car for $20 and park it closer to their target than any missile would get. And there won't be an immediate nuclear response because no one will be sure where it came from. >>



This is the most ridiculous reasoning for not pursuing this I've ever seen, yet it's parrotted far and wide.

Tell me, using this exact same logic, would you have police officers stop wearing body armor because a criminal could sneak up on them and shoot them in the head?

 

[BlueApple]

<< I'm a lot more worried about someone seizing a missile in a country such as Pakistan than I am about someone somehow smuggling an entire nuclear weapon into this country. >>


Pakistan's missiles don't have a range of 10,000 miles. And the someone smuggling in to the US, you mean like what happened 5 months ago?

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Pakistan's missiles don't have a range of 10,000 miles. And the someone smuggling in to the US, you mean like what happened 5 months ago? >>


I am well aware of what the ranges of ballistic missile are. You, however, are not aware of what the proposed deployment plan of this system is. It will be deployed domestically, overseas and probably shipboard. To the best of my recollection no nuclear device was detonated 5 months ago. Big difference. The threat is that some rogue state launches a missile or terrorists seize a missile and manage to launch it. The threat is real and this system is designed to stop it. I still think this is a technology that needs to be developed. I also think we should share the cost and the technology with our allies.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm absolutly convinced that the need for the technology is real and has nothing whatever to do with the warning Eisenhower issued regarding the military industrial complex.

Bush and the rest of the government don't get any money from thses guys so they have no favors to repay in the form of lucrative contracts.