All for it since a lot of the $$$ is going to go right here to CA
sweet sweet money, i'm for it then
the threat of suitcase nukes is more likely than ICBMs, imagine putting a nuke aboard some ship bound for NY or SF, and detonate it at the harbor....that is an easier task than firing an ICBM. So, a missile defense system will still not protect against suitcase bombs. Maybe Bush should spend more money on intelligence, have more spies and CIA agents.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,556
- 126
<< No country in the Middle East would dare launch a rogue missile at us unless they were ready to pay the consequences... >>
the first threat is from north korea. north korea currently has 2 stage rockets that can reach alaska, and only need another stage to reach the US or orbit. north korea's leadership has shown that they care little for their citizens, and they are quite well dug in over there. the leaders go and hide in an underground shelter for a while. i doubt we'd even try to nuke north korea as it would have consequences in south korea, and maybe china or japan as well. MAD doesn't apply to them.
the next threat is from middle eastern countries. again the leadership in many of these states is well dug in, and has no regard for the common people. again, absolute destruction doesn't apply to them. it is forseeable that iran will have another revolution as hard-liners try to put down a liberal uprising. if the uprising is successful the last thing iranian hard liners would defend is nuclear missles which the chinese or maybe the russians would have not problem selling them. the hard liners would, in their final stand, launch their missles against pre-determined targets, probably the US and UK. israel too, i would imagine.
an ABM system is the only plausible defense against these scenarios, of which the north korean one is much more likely, though another decade will tell us if the middle eastern one is plausible.
another poster mentioned that only Dirty City (DC) would be protected, which is false. DC could be protected by an ABM system under the ABM treaty. the current system in discussion would protect most of the continental US from a korean attack with the missles based in alaska. middle eastern attack would be based elsewhere, not sure where, i'd have to go look at my notes which are 10,000 miles away.
the cons of course are that the missle system currently has a high miss rate. this system wouldn't be deployed for almost another decade, and the technology will improve in that space of time. i'd like to see how the system can avoid being duped by mylar balloons with heaters in them, though. pretty easy to make those, and in space they have about the same drag as the warhead itself. and of course putting a few of those along with MRVs could probably overload a handful of missles. we'd need 100 or so to be well protected.
EDIT: i imagine that congress, being in control of appropriations, has already thought of upping the CIA budget, which, remarkably, has been reported as already being done. in fact, congress gave the CIA several hundred million more than they requested.
EDIT2: making a suitcase bomb is very hard. requires some tech to get rather high yields, and anyone who doesn't have a lot of nuclear experience is going to overbuild it to make sure it goes off. they'd have to purchase one from the russians. of course, the russians couldn't find all of them in an audit, but russians don't keep very good records and the Lt. at the bottom looking through the record probably didn't look real hard either.
New technologies don't grow on trees. In order for us to be the first to profect this very necessary defense weapon we need to continue testing and building. That is actualy the one area I think my tax dollars are well spent. Anything that has to do with defending my country I'm behind 100%
<< The 'threat' from missiles is very, very small at this moment and isn't going to change much in the future. >>
Really. People with access to a lot more information than you, don't agree. The "threat" of someone destroying the WTC was very small also. Everything I've read tells me this threat is real and is growing.
<< Besides, soon we'll see missiles which travel underwater, or will have their own defense-systems against other missiles. In such a case, the missile shield will be instantly worthless. >>
LOL. You forgot about the missile with the cloaking device. If you're going to make an argument at least base it on some facts instead of just making sh!t up.
Eh i don't think it's a waste of money. And i completely support it. But like a few peeps were saying, i wish they spend more money on education than military. Not to say spend less on the military, but more on education. How i see it, if we have more smarter and wiser kids growing up, then hopefully they can find alternative ways to solve problems than war or violence. (though sometimes there is no choice) If not, at least the can build even better and cheaper technology.
peace
sean
peace
sean
If my memory serves me right, Russians are not really worried about the system because it will not be able to stop MIRV:s, especially if individual warheads very simple, cheap and now existing countermeasures.
The question is, if some rouge state or a terrorist group can accuire a missile with a nuke, how difficult can it be to get the countermeasures as well?
I don't know about you, but to me that's still 20-30% of missiles that are not getting through. A hell of a lot better than 100% getting though when its you a$$ their firing at. Also, technology has advanced. We have AEGIS cruiser now that have very good percentages against missiles. Of course, that's not fair comparison because an ICBM is a hell of a lot faster than a scud. But still. Anything is better than nothing.
<< During the gulf war the military was claiming a very high shootdown success rate.
Later on, (and many people still don't know this) it leaked out that the kill ratio was like 20-30 %:disgust: >>
<< During the gulf war the military was claiming a very high shootdown success rate.
Later on, (and many people still don't know this) it leaked out that the kill ratio was like 20-30 %:disgust: >>
<< I don't know about you, but to me that's still 20-30% of missiles that are not getting through. A hell of a lot better than 100% getting though when its you a$$ their firing at. Also, technology has advanced. We have AEGIS cruiser now that have very good percentages against missiles. Of course, that's not fair comparison because an ICBM is a hell of a lot faster than a scud. But still. Anything is better than nothing.
<< During the gulf war the military was claiming a very high shootdown success rate.
Later on, (and many people still don't know this) it leaked out that the kill ratio was like 20-30 %:disgust: >>
>>
20%? if only 1 got through, then we'd have a catastrophe that would dwarf 9-11, and no system this complex could ever be 100% reliable. there are a lot of people who didn't learn from the billions wasted in the 80's on BMD.
<EDIT2: making a suitcase bomb is very hard. requires some tech to get rather high yields, and anyone who doesn't have a lot of nuclear experience is going to overbuild it to make sure it goes off. they'd have to purchase one from the russians. of course, the russians couldn't find all of them in an audit, but russians don't keep very good records and the Lt. at the bottom looking through the record probably didn't look real hard either. >
hard to make? You don't need to 'make' a suitcase bomb. If one can acquire an ICBM warhead or MIRV warhead, that is already a suitcase bomb. It does not need to be small like a suitcase to carry around by one person, it just needs to be transported to the place that you want to detonate at. And the way I see it, the easiest way is thru shipping. Set some timer or remote detonator and off it goes when it reaches the harbor. If you think about it, it is also easier to make a 'dirty nuclear' bomb like the one that Osama is trying to build. They don't need launch pads for those.
hard to make? You don't need to 'make' a suitcase bomb. If one can acquire an ICBM warhead or MIRV warhead, that is already a suitcase bomb. It does not need to be small like a suitcase to carry around by one person, it just needs to be transported to the place that you want to detonate at. And the way I see it, the easiest way is thru shipping. Set some timer or remote detonator and off it goes when it reaches the harbor. If you think about it, it is also easier to make a 'dirty nuclear' bomb like the one that Osama is trying to build. They don't need launch pads for those.
<<
<< The 'threat' from missiles is very, very small at this moment and isn't going to change much in the future. >>
Really. People with access to a lot more information than you, don't agree. The "threat" of someone destroying the WTC was very small also. Everything I've read tells me this threat is real and is growing. >>
If the US stops trying to modelling the world in a shape it likes, then other countries are less likely to attack. And actually, this shield would only be effective against missiles, not any other kinds of attacks, and it would have an extremely hit/miss ratio, which makes it a very expensive joke.
What if a country would indeed fire a bunch of missiles towards the US and only 2 of the 14 missiles would be shot down, would it actually matter?
Now if this shield would actually work, I might think in a more positive way about it, but that's wishful thinking.
<<
<< Besides, soon we'll see missiles which travel underwater, or will have their own defense-systems against other missiles. In such a case, the missile shield will be instantly worthless. >>
LOL. You forgot about the missile with the cloaking device. If you're going to make an argument at least base it on some facts instead of just making sh!t up. >>
Actually, I didn't make the 'underwater'-missile up. Some time ago it was suggested in Scientific American that such missiles would be possible with the use of a new technology, which would allow objects to travel underwater without too much drag, so that they could reach much higher speeds.
Such a missile would emerge in front of the coast and then head for its target. It's not science-fiction, but very well possible with the current state of technology.
I don't think we should try to put one in place at this time, but with furthur research, I believe it could very well save a lot of lives. And when comparing money to human lives, I will pick the human lives.
If the goal is to stop a full nuclear strike from Russia or China, it is a huge waste of money. Even assuming that the Russians don't make any changes to their current missiles, it's an extremely expensive system. But you can bet your house that the Russians are going to try every trick in their books to counteract these defense systems. There was a great deal of research done in USSR when they were afraid of SDI, which can be incorporated now.
But if the real goal is to stop an attack from a single unsophisticated missile fired from Korea or whatever, probably can be done.
But if the real goal is to stop an attack from a single unsophisticated missile fired from Korea or whatever, probably can be done.
<< If the US stops trying to modelling the world in a shape it likes, then other countries are less likely to attack. >>
way off topic but im really sick of people blaming the US for the 9-11 Attacks, how exactly are we "shaping the world"? anyone can come to the US and practice any religion they want, vote for whatever/whoever they want, yet some US citizen goes to another country and gets arrested for being a christian, what a joke, and in Desert Shield, we were over there protecting Saudi Arabia, and they dont even let our troops sing xmass songs, and we're the ones forcing something on someone else? what exactly are we forcing on them? freedom, human rights? oh no. The majority of the Middle East hates us because we are the only thing stopping them from over running Isreal and they cant stand it.
<< I wish the government would allocate more money to education system instead of the military. >>
Now we can talk about a REAL waste of money!:|
I kinda think its a good idea. I think Bush is right. Now the cost is going to very high, but I do believe we need to begin to protect our home land. We take for granite that we're safe from enemy attack. I don't think we're as safe as people think. I also believe some of these enemy countries have more military ability than we think. So I do think we need to DTA, "Don't trust anybody", and be prepared for conflict.
<< Yeah, I don't know enough about this. So I'm not gonna post on this topic. >>
Never stopped me before.
I have to go with the pres here... we need this. You guys wouldnt think it was a waste of money if we were being targeted, which could be a possibility, dont ya think?
<< I kinda think its a good idea. I think Bush is right. Now the cost is going to very high, but I do believe we need to begin to protect our home land. We take for granite that we're safe from enemy attack. I don't think we're as safe as people think. I also believe some of these enemy countries have more military ability than we think. So I do think we need to DTA, "Don't trust anybody", and be prepared for conflict. >>
pretty much sums up how I feel.
except is spelled "granted" not "granite"
I'm afraid it will be Just Another Government Program that saps money and offers only TV headline benefits for the politicians. If the testing they've done thus far proved the system is feasible I would be behind the idea. But the hit ratio is abyssimal and the protection it offers for the money spent isn't very high.
<< I'm afraid it will be Just Another Government Program that saps money and offers only TV headline benefits for the politicians. >>
That is exactly what EVERY Government program really is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter