Sea-based ballistic missile defense works, again -- sorry, naysayers!

[rchiu]

Why are people still fascinated with sophisticate weapons and big military now a day? Do you guys think any country is foolish enough to challenge US head on?

I would feel more secured if US spend more money in CIA or any agency that does covert operations, penetrates terrorist cells, gather intelligence and hit the terrorist with a small specialized units, kill or assassinate them outright without a full scaled war. I know AEGIS is cool and all, but it cheaper and easier for terrorist to load a truck full of explosives and drive it to some building than buy some kind of bullistic missile and shoot it at us.

 

[Witling]

Charrison rides again! saying, "So to sum this post up.

When things are difficult, we are better off not doing them."

No, Charrison, we're not better off not doing things becaue they're difficult, but national defense is, IMO, not about missle defense. Big spending for government defense contractors is about missle defense, but we have limited resources. Rchiu makes a good point about how we should be using them. A second way to use them $87 Billion this year, would be to bring the third-world countries up to a level of economic development where they'd have something to gain by cooperating, something to do with their unemployed youth, and something that we could bomb back to the stone age to threaten them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why are people still fascinated with sophisticate weapons and big military now a day? Do you guys think any country is foolish enough to challenge US head on?

Because all kinds of side benefits can be discovered and utilized from advanced research, even weapons research?
I'm all for increased spending in military research and development.

Also this test isn't for ICBMs or anything, right? I thought that this test was for a missile used against ships.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling

CanOWorms. I disagree with you about the purpose of research. I think it's corporate welfare. 1. Who's gonna launch a missle at us -- and thoughtfully give us anough time to get the 747 in place. I don't think you've adequately dealt with the spinning polished missle body. You can't burn through metal instantaneously.

I disagree with you. The reason the US is #1 in technology is because we're relentless in our research. Not only corporations do research. Universities, research centers, etc. do a ton of research too. And the big bad fat company isn't getting all the money. They sub-contract things out a lot to the little guys. When you hear that Boeing gets a contract to build or test the space station module, Boeing hires tons of additional companies and individuals, publishes papers, etc.

You shouldn't be so narrow-minded. I don't think anyone is going to lob a missile at us. However, the research and technical know-how we'd get would be nice. There are so many systems here with applications to all sorts of fields.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Whitling
Most physical scientists think that effective laser weapons for missle destruction are beyond the limits of our current understanding of physics.

That's the point of research, to advance the limits of our understanding.

That's a beautiful concept. I really mean that. What liberal, what human being doesn't wish for humanity to strive to it's full potential.

Unfortunately it's not a defense of the system, as it is the ends of the goals of this struggle as well as the means that have divided the parties in this country (kind of odd for the division to be so close to 50/50). Anyway, while I think you intended to support the effort (from the conservative side), it's hardly a suitable defense when the man you have in office(and want again, for chrissakes?) isn't even interested in reading the newspaper.

Well I'd rather have a NMD than a super-fast, laser-powered can opener.

I'm a conservative? I want Bush in office?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why are people still fascinated with sophisticate weapons and big military now a day? Do you guys think any country is foolish enough to challenge US head on?

Because all kinds of side benefits can be discovered and utilized from advanced research, even weapons research?
I'm all for increased spending in military research and development.

Also this test isn't for ICBMs or anything, right? I thought that this test was for a missile used against ships.

Let's focus on what military spending is suppose to do shall we? I mean if you want research and discovery, put the funding in university and companies. Military spending is suppose to defend the people and the nation and let's face it, the most dangerous thread we have today is from terrorists that does not fight us using conventional means.

Why spend money in something that is not really useful, and neglect the area that we should focus for our security?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why are people still fascinated with sophisticate weapons and big military now a day? Do you guys think any country is foolish enough to challenge US head on?

Because all kinds of side benefits can be discovered and utilized from advanced research, even weapons research?
I'm all for increased spending in military research and development.

Also this test isn't for ICBMs or anything, right? I thought that this test was for a missile used against ships.

Let's focus on what military spending is suppose to do shall we? I mean if you want research and discovery, put the funding in university and companies. Military spending is suppose to defend the people and the nation and let's face it, the most dangerous thread we have today is from terrorists that does not fight us using conventional means.

Why spend money in something that is not really useful, and neglect the area that we should focus for our security?

Who says that advanced weapons research isn't really useful? I'd say that it is. Combine that with side benefits of research, then that's fantastic.
Anyways, If you want to stay at the top, you better keep working and improving.

Sure, it would be nice if we didn't have to keep doing research in weapons development or anything else like that...but a world that doesn't require that only exists in fairy tales.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why are people still fascinated with sophisticate weapons and big military now a day? Do you guys think any country is foolish enough to challenge US head on?

Because all kinds of side benefits can be discovered and utilized from advanced research, even weapons research?
I'm all for increased spending in military research and development.

Also this test isn't for ICBMs or anything, right? I thought that this test was for a missile used against ships.

Let's focus on what military spending is suppose to do shall we? I mean if you want research and discovery, put the funding in university and companies. Military spending is suppose to defend the people and the nation and let's face it, the most dangerous thread we have today is from terrorists that does not fight us using conventional means.

Why spend money in something that is not really useful, and neglect the area that we should focus for our security?

It's not like the research in NMD isn't applied in other fields. Look at all the different systems they're using for all the different layers or whatever.

 

[Witling]

OK, you think missle defense has a shot at it, huh. Well, go to the Federation of American Scientists site and click on the Coyle Report. It's an Acrobat file. It was done in 2000 and it mentions that there are a few problems with missle defense.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the tactical accuracy of "peer to peer" missile technology could eventually be appilied in space somehow...

i'm actually quite both amazed and dismayed by the speed our various technologies are going along. we lag by far in alternative fuel cell, if $83 billion had been thrown that way, we'd have solved the problem by now. quantum, biotech/DNA, space, energy technologies could enjoy far greater success if we put $300 billion adjusted for inflation into either one of them just like when we first put a man on the moon in 10 years flat

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling
OK, you think missle defense has a shot at it, huh. Well, go to the Federation of American Scientists site and click on the Coyle Report. It's an Acrobat file. It was done in 2000 and it mentions that there are a few problems with missle defense.

Few problems? Wow. You think? I thought we could buy all the parts from Wal-Mart and assemble it with tools from Home Depot. Color me surprised, Bubba!

You can get a thousand scientists/engineers that are in support of it, you can find another thousand against it. I'm sure many scientists and engineers back in the day said it wasn't possible to have computers of the size we have today. It might be tough, I'm not denying it. Impossible? I doubt it.

 

[Witling]

I hope you're young Can. You'll have a long time to pay for the research, but you will never seen an effective missle defense system.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison rides again! saying, "So to sum this post up.

When things are difficult, we are better off not doing them."

No, Charrison, we're not better off not doing things becaue they're difficult, but national defense is, IMO, not about missle defense. Big spending for government defense contractors is about missle defense, but we have limited resources. Rchiu makes a good point about how we should be using them. A second way to use them $87 Billion this year, would be to bring the third-world countries up to a level of economic development where they'd have something to gain by cooperating, something to do with their unemployed youth, and something that we could bomb back to the stone age to threaten them.

ICBM and nuclear techlogy is exploding around the world. I think it would be foolish to not invest in such technology.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling
I hope you're young Can. You'll have a long time to pay for the research, but you will never seen an effective missle defense system.

... so says the luddite.

I don't care if I never see an effective NMD (even though I think we will if we keep its program). I'll see the successful by-products of it and the US retaining its technological edge.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Whitling
I hope you're young Can. You'll have a long time to pay for the research, but you will never seen an effective missle defense system.

... so says the luddite.

I don't care if I never see an effective NMD (even though I think we will if we keep its program). I'll see the successful by-products of it and the US retaining its technological edge.

I wonder if whitling is a member of the flat earth society?

Components of missle defense are already working and he is saying we will never see it.

 

[Witling]

It's an exageration to say "they're working." Many of the components have been "demonstrated in principle," "miniature," or "simulation." Remember how the twits from the 50's completely missed the revelutions in computing, feminism, and communications. They thought we'd all be driving rockets and some of us would be living on the moon. I'm not against progress, insults to the contrary, but missle defense is a chimera. --Oh, wait, I forgot. We got Tang our of the space program.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
It's an exageration to say "they're working." Many of the components have been "demonstrated in principle," "miniature," or "simulation." Remember how the twits from the 50's completely missed the revelutions in computing, feminism, and communications. They thought we'd all be driving rockets and some of us would be living on the moon. I'm not against progress, insults to the contrary, but missle defense is a chimera. --Oh, wait, I forgot. We got Tang our of the space program.

So were the recents test with missle defence either miniture or simulation?

Nope, they were full scale tests. I think you should do a bit more reading before you start talking down the progress that has been made.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling
It's an exageration to say "they're working." Many of the components have been "demonstrated in principle," "miniature," or "simulation." Remember how the twits from the 50's completely missed the revelutions in computing, feminism, and communications. They thought we'd all be driving rockets and some of us would be living on the moon. I'm not against progress, insults to the contrary, but missle defense is a chimera. --Oh, wait, I forgot. We got Tang our of the space program.

The space program drove a lot of people into engineering, provided tons of experience for people to develop other fields, as well as by-products like your beloved Tang. I wished we could have another program like that which would interest people into sciences and engineering as careers again.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Yeah, the space programs are crap because they only gave us Tang...I mean they did nothing for us in signal processing, imaging, medical applications, materials research, etc. Just Tang.

 

[Witling]

Not my beloved Tang, Can. What makes you say that? The U.S. had money when it went into the space race. The economy is in the process of crashing. I wish we could have another program like that too, but the glory days are over. Get ready to find out how the rest of the developed world lives.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Not my beloved Tang, Can. What makes you say that? The U.S. had money when it went into the space race. The economy is in the process of crashing. I wish we could have another program like that too, but the glory days are over. Get ready to find out how the rest of the developed world lives.

crashing? no kidding?


What signs do you see of a crash?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Not my beloved Tang, Can. What makes you say that? The U.S. had money when it went into the space race. The economy is in the process of crashing. I wish we could have another program like that too, but the glory days are over. Get ready to find out how the rest of the developed world lives.

I think that we still have plenty of money to invest into a space program or any other highly advanced research. The potential of the research is far too great to simply abandon.

I still can't believe that you think that we only got Tang from space research. You're completely ignoring so many benefits that we got from this research....benefits that you are surely enjoying as of this moment, too...even if there isn't a pitcher of Tang in your refrigerator.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Not my beloved Tang, Can. What makes you say that? The U.S. had money when it went into the space race. The economy is in the process of crashing. I wish we could have another program like that too, but the glory days are over. Get ready to find out how the rest of the developed world lives.

I've been to the underdeveloped parts of the world and see that they spend all sorts of money on space and military research.

Should China have spent all that money on their space program on feeding the hungry instead (as nice as that sounds...)? Or should they try to keep their brainpower at home, advance their research, etc.? Same with India. The benefits sometimes are much greater than something that sounds nice right now.

NASA has developed thousands upon thousands of things in so many fields. Consumer products as well as engineering techniques & knowledge. Even today, experience and research at NASA works in things such as oil pipelines in the earth, which is the farthest from space you can get! I wonder how many people have been saved from medical imaging technology, which I believe is a NASA by-product. Probably a lot more than instituting some useless other program.

It would be cool if we all hugged each other, held hands, and sing songs of peace together, but it's not that time yet for our civilization.

 

[Witling]

Crashing, no kidding. Right now the stock market is going up. A great deal of money was taken out when it was going down. The people and institutions who own that money are looking for something to do with it. Right now we're reinflating. Bur the size of the budget deficits, without end in sight, is a reality that I believe will assert itself during the next presidential term, regardless of who is elected.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Crashing, no kidding. Right now the stock market is going up. A great deal of money was taken out when it was going down. The people and institutions who own that money are looking for something to do with it. Right now we're reinflating. Bur the size of the budget deficits, without end in sight, is a reality that I believe will assert itself during the next presidential term, regardless of who is elected.

Reality is corperate profits have returned.
Reality is current defecits are no where near historic highs.
Reality is unemployment is still relativly low.
Reality is things are not as bad as you and dave want them to be.