• 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.

Missile Fails in Test to Intercept Target

B

BlueApple

Banned
Missile Fails in Test to Intercept Target

Missile Fails in Test to Intercept Target
Sat Feb 16, 4:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A missile that the U.S. military hopes will be part of the Bush administration's controversial missile defense program failed to intercept its target during a test on Saturday, the U.S. Army said.


The upgraded Patriot PAC-3 missile, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., was supposed to intercept a cruise missile target in Saturday's test in New Mexico.... (story continued)

 
Tests aren't always successful. If they were, they wouldn't be called "tests."

But I'm sure most people on here will say that this proves that a missile defense system won't work or that it proves Bush eats human feces or something.
 
Well, then. It's a good thing they're testing it and trying to get it right before deploying, huh?
 


<< Well, then. It's a good thing they're testing it and trying to get it right before deploying, huh? >>



Didn't your mother ever tell you not to bring reason and rationale into a political conversation? 🙂
 
An old engineer once said to me when a project wasn't going 'quite right'.

"If it was easy, we wouldn't be here. There's a reason they call it reseach."

WHEN ROCKETS GO BAD

Check out the "DELTA 2 SHOWERS DEBRIS ON CAPE " , I love the understatement of "we have an anomaly.
 
The ambitious technical feat behind a missle defense system of the type proposed is well-known. I would be very suspicious if the government DIDN'T have several failures along the way.
 
Most scientists don't think this will work. I read an article about this in Scientifc American about a year ago. I think there are better ways to spend our Defense dollars.
 


<< Most scientists don't think this will work. I read an article about this in Scientifc American about a year ago. I think there are better ways to spend our Defense dollars. >>


What's the alternative though? Just letting an errant missile smash into L.A.?
 


<< Most scientists don't think this will work. I read an article about this in Scientifc American about a year ago. I think there are better ways to spend our Defense dollars. >>



Never trust scientists that say It'll never work.
 
Just watched a blurb on the pre-atomic era when a panel of distinguished engineers and scientists gave their opinion to Congress and the President on the feasibility of producing an atom bomb. All but one man said it couldn't be done. Five years later we A-bombed Japan.

I can imagine what they were probably saying about engineering and technical feats like Hoover Dam. "That's crazy."

Of course, Americans were the eminent "get-it-doners" once upon a time. Today it seems like we can't accomplish large feats without fantastically exceeding budgets and winding-up with something less than we initially wanted.



 
They thought the Wright Brothers were nucking futs, as well. Columbus was scoffed at.

I'm not sure that we'll have the greatest luck with missile-to-missile defense. I think a particle beam or laser would be a lot more efficient. (Plus hella cool. 😉)
 
I know people that have analyzed the MDP for years, and they aren't very optimistic. These single missile tests are failing badly, but imagine trying to shoot down an entire pack of them. The logistics involved are exponentially more complex, due to dispersal/shockwave patterns.
 
I'm no expert on the military, but haven't there been a whole bunch of programs cancelled, after wasting a lot of money. Like that plane that took off and landed vertically, and kept crashing.
 
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.
 


<< 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. >>


*and* once they figure out which country is responsible for the bomb, that country can claim that whoever the individual people are that left it are extremist wackos who in no way should be taken to represent the majority of people from that country
 


<< I know people that have analyzed the MDP for years, and they aren't very optimistic. >>


Sure you do.


<< The logistics involved are exponentially more complex, due to dispersal/shockwave patterns. >>


Whatever the hell that means


<< I'm no expert on the military, but haven't there been a whole bunch of programs cancelled, after wasting a lot of money. Like that plane that took off and landed vertically, and kept crashing. >>


Yeah, DoD has cancelled programs. So has MS, IBM, Ford, Intel, etc. As far as the planes go are you talking about Harrier or Osprey? Both are in service.


<< 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. >>


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.
Let's once again go over what this system is designed to initially do. It will be designed to shoot down a rogue missile. It is not designed to shoot down a full sortie from a country such as the former Soviet Union. The way we are preventing that is through MAD. That is why the missile silos are manned and the Trident subs are on alert patrol. I personally don't know if this system will work. I think it will. I also think we should try. It may be worth it in just job creation and the "collateral" technology that is developed.
 
Didn't bush want this deployed in like 2004/5? I don't see that happening.



<< Most scientists don't think this will work >>



Its only a matter of time.
 


<< Didn't bush want this deployed in like 2004/5? I don't see that happening.


<< Most scientists don't think this will work >>


Its only a matter of time. >>


Yup. And if it's something we need...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top