US missile defense to be operative in 2004.

[Martin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is like barricading your front door and leaving the back door open. If someone wanted to strike the US and knew their missles would be stopped, they would simply do it anyother way.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is like barricading your front door and leaving the back door open. If someone wanted to strike the US and knew their missles would be stopped, they would simply do it anyother way.

True, but the more doors are closed the harder it is.

 

[ReiAyanami]

remember a short while ago about the laser system being developed? thats what we need. a laser system by TRW was able to kill super sonic mortar shells fired randomly, this is realtime application for battlefields.

meanwhile LMT also did a laser test against a missile and it worked with 100% accuracy. hitting a missile with another missile is rather stupid way to go about it, hitting a missile with a beam of intensified light is better since you know INSTANTLY whether u hit it or not, and then u can re-aim it.

our satellites in space have the resolution ability to read a license plate all the way from above, replace the camera with a laser and bam, u got ur laser defense.

 

[ReiAyanami]

and of course rail guns, always should have sub-orbital railguns for back-up.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

While I'm not overly thrilled at the expenditure, I'd rather have the US prepared in advance than trying to play catch up when and if a serious threat blooms on the horizon. Several countries will have US strike capabilities in the next couple of decades and I would rather have a developed system in place already than deciding to do something about it after the fact.

Let's pretend Bush has funding to deploy in 2004. It is unlikely that it will work at all. Doesn't it make sense to deploy a working system in a few years even a decade than waste billions to put in one that we know does not?!

As for more countries with long range capablilities in a few decades.

Why not find common ground with them instead of picking fights? Food/fuel convoys to NK; make them take delivery from the South so they know who is buttering and giving them bread.

Supporting nascent democracy in Iran by saying . . . we support nascent democracy in Iran . . . do it at your pace.

Rejecting militant states like Pakistan.

Supporting the people of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait instead of oligarchy. Now Yemen has Scuds . . . who wants to bet that within a decade EVERY country on the Arabian peninsula will have Scuds? We need something that resembles thoughtful/realistic leadership not ideology run amuck.

Oh yeah that whole Palestinian thing. If the US wanted to show goodwill in the Middle East it should swallow its pride (and tell Sharon to kiss our arse) and offer the Palestinians a mound of development assistance to build (and defend) a state. The only requirement is that Arafat move along since he clearly is ineffective. Using UN forces they begin to extricate the terrorist entities while building a true civilian defense force.

Some of your thoughts sound exactly like ideology run amuck.

Common ground is not always possible in the diplomatic world. NK wants foreign sources to come to their assistance but does not want to discontinue their nuclear weapons program. I agree about Iran; they are on their way, let them do it at thier pace unless we see a turn for the worse. Who are the people of SA and Kuwait and how do we support them? Most support funnels through the hands of the government in charge, whoever or whichever country that is. How do we get support to the people without looking like we are fomenting revolution? I agree scuds will be in the hands of anyone capable of buying them.

Edit: Forgot about the Palestinians. For what reason would we support the Palestinians in such a manner? So they can get on their feet and then give us the finger? They have a long way to come before they deserve any support; I believe in that saying, "You can't help those who will not help themselves." So far they have been do little, to nothing, in helping themselves.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is like barricading your front door and leaving the back door open. If someone wanted to strike the US and knew their missles would be stopped, they would simply do it anyother way.

It's not even that good. It's the equivalent of barricading the door with papier mache but leaving it unlocked while telling the whole world that the front door is unlocked but barricaded with papier mache and the backdoor . . . umm we've got a backdoor?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
remember a short while ago about the laser system being developed? thats what we need. a laser system by TRW was able to kill super sonic mortar shells fired randomly, this is realtime application for battlefields.

meanwhile LMT also did a laser test against a missile and it worked with 100% accuracy. hitting a missile with another missile is rather stupid way to go about it, hitting a missile with a beam of intensified light is better since you know INSTANTLY whether u hit it or not, and then u can re-aim it.

our satellites in space have the resolution ability to read a license plate all the way from above, replace the camera with a laser and bam, u got ur laser defense.

Uhm, except that laser is orders of magnitude heavier & power hungry relative to the camera.
Add to that that you only need the camera to pass over the target occasionally, while for missile defense, you need to cover the entire earth (or at least certain latitude bands) continuously with LEO satellites. Preferably multiple coverage if you want to have more then one shot at boost phase. Now you need potentially dozens of huge satellites to get even basic protection.

Add to that discrimination issues, C&C issues, and a whole host of other problems and you end of with a hugely expensive program which, at the very best, can only be marginally effective.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

NK wants foreign sources to come to their assistance but does not want to discontinue their nuclear weapons program. I agree about Iran; they are on their way, let them do it at thier pace unless we see a turn for the worse. Who are the people of SA and Kuwait and how do we support them? Most support funnels through the hands of the government in charge, whoever or whichever country that is. How do we get support to the people without looking like we are fomenting revolution?

Here's my ideology . . . do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . and if our diplomatic/military machinations even closely resembled that over the past 30 years we would not be in this predicament.

NK of course wants assistance. The leadership is delusional but they aren't stupid. If they were Christian maybe they would expect to feed the country with 5 loaves and 2 fish but Jesus has left the building. Hmm ballistic missiles and tests . . . it's the only thing North Korea has that anybody wants. Do you think Yemen would have splurged on Scuds (it can't afford) if it didn't think they could go a couple of hundred miles? I repeat the ruling elite is off kilter in the North but they are not stupid.

Your ideology is that any country that takes a direction other than the direction we want should be prepared for US intervention . . . well except for China b/c they might hit back . . . oh yeah, and Russia (Chechyns are all terrorists). You cannot impose democracy. It has to be the decision of the people or it will fail. There will be good times and bad times in Iran but they are the best hope for a long lasting democracy b/c the people are leading the revolution maybe evolution is more accurate.

Who doubts that the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia allows if not endorses the hate taught in the schools? Why should we support the notion of the people of Iraq overthrowing Saddam while the people in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also intimidated into following the oligarchies edicts? American foreign policy is rife with hypocrisy. We foment revolution when it looks advantageous to our aims.

I see you left off Pakistan. Let me help you out. We thought Pakistan was necessary and sufficient to swash the Taliban and cut off the head of Al Qaeda. Clearly no one in the White House progressed past single variable calculus. They were wrong . . . way wrong.

Pakistan is not a friend, just the borderline despotic head of state.

Saudi Arabia is not a friend, just the royals and they are two-faced.

Kuwait is a friend of convenience, Saddam.

Qatar is a friend of convenience, Saddam.

Iran is not a friend but only the religious zealots consider us an enemy.

Yemen is not a friend that can be relied upon.

Egypt is not a friend, just the head of state.

Israel is a friend but they are the kind of friend that's always getting you into trouble.

India should be our best friend but they have a mortal enemy that we call a friend.

Jordan is a friend but Jordan wants to be friends with everybody.

Turkey is a tempermental friend.

Syria, well Syria doesn't have any friends.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Add to that discrimination issues, C&C issues, and a whole host of other problems and you end of with a hugely expensive program which, at the very best, can only be marginally effective.

Yes, but it sounds cool, will intimidate/impress the uninitiated, and will keep the DOD budget at the head of the trough for the next century. I say build it.

 

[ScottyB]

More money spent on an already bloated military.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Oh and I'm sure it's a coincidence this information was released from the White House today.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Forget about Anakin and Jar Jar. The REAL Star Wars is BACK!!!

"A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away..."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Just saw Rumsfeld on CNN.

(Paraphrase) We are putting out (don't use the word deploy) a small "c" capability. Such a preliminary system will aid the development of a more advanced system that may look very different. In the meantime, it can provide some defense against a limited attack.

(Translation) Dude, this thing doesn't work but someday it might work. In the meantime, if someone tries to hit us with a missile that has no chance of reaching us our system might very well look quite successful.

 

[HazeOfIgnorance]

Can't you see it's just a tactic to help Jane and John American sleep at night? No, there is virtually no threat from an attack of ICBM's. Nobody is that stupid. Our retaliation would be far worse than their attack. The truth is it's almost impossible to stop countries and terrorists from finding some way to transport a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb into the country, however, we can detect and track missles launched at our country. There just giving us a false sense of security.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

NK wants foreign sources to come to their assistance but does not want to discontinue their nuclear weapons program. I agree about Iran; they are on their way, let them do it at thier pace unless we see a turn for the worse. Who are the people of SA and Kuwait and how do we support them? Most support funnels through the hands of the government in charge, whoever or whichever country that is. How do we get support to the people without looking like we are fomenting revolution?

Here's my ideology . . . do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . and if our diplomatic/military machinations even closely resembled that over the past 30 years we would not be in this predicament.

NK of course wants assistance. The leadership is delusional but they aren't stupid. If they were Christian maybe they would expect to feed the country with 5 loaves and 2 fish but Jesus has left the building. Hmm ballistic missiles and tests . . . it's the only thing North Korea has that anybody wants. Do you think Yemen would have splurged on Scuds (it can't afford) if it didn't think they could go a couple of hundred miles? I repeat the ruling elite is off kilter in the North but they are not stupid.

Your ideology is that any country that takes a direction other than the direction we want should be prepared for US intervention . . . well except for China b/c they might hit back . . . oh yeah, and Russia (Chechyns are all terrorists). You cannot impose democracy. It has to be the decision of the people or it will fail. There will be good times and bad times in Iran but they are the best hope for a long lasting democracy b/c the people are leading the revolution maybe evolution is more accurate.

Who doubts that the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia allows if not endorses the hate taught in the schools? Why should we support the notion of the people of Iraq overthrowing Saddam while the people in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also intimidated into following the oligarchies edicts? American foreign policy is rife with hypocrisy. We foment revolution when it looks advantageous to our aims.

I see you left off Pakistan. Let me help you out. We thought Pakistan was necessary and sufficient to swash the Taliban and cut off the head of Al Qaeda. Clearly no one in the White House progressed past single variable calculus. They were wrong . . . way wrong.

Pakistan is not a friend, just the borderline despotic head of state.

Saudi Arabia is not a friend, just the royals and they are two-faced.

Kuwait is a friend of convenience, Saddam.

Qatar is a friend of convenience, Saddam.

Iran is not a friend but only the religious zealots consider us an enemy.

Yemen is not a friend that can be relied upon.

Egypt is not a friend, just the head of state.

Israel is a friend but they are the kind of friend that's always getting you into trouble.

India should be our best friend but they have a mortal enemy that we call a friend.

Jordan is a friend but Jordan wants to be friends with everybody.

Turkey is a tempermental friend.

Syria, well Syria doesn't have any friends.

BBD - No my ideology is not "any country that takes a direction other than the direction we want should be prepared for US intervention ". I'm not a foaming-at-the-mouth US idealogue. That's exactly what has us embroiled into many of the messes we find ourselves in throughout the past decades. But we cannot ignore situations that develop that are contrary to our interests nor can we afford to assist every country that has their hand out without attaching our own interests to the deal. I don't believe in imposing democracy but I do believe in promoting it amongst those who have thier hands out to us for whatever reason, be it money, security or even the friendship of a powerful friend.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But we cannot ignore situations that develop that are contrary to our interests nor can we afford to assist every country that has their hand out without attaching our own interests to the deal. I don't believe in imposing democracy but I do believe in promoting it amongst those who have thier hands out to us for whatever reason, be it money, security or even the friendship of a powerful friend.

How are we promoting democracy in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Qatar? America's history over the past 50 years has resembled strategic interests not goodwill. Our current relations with a variety of states did not occur in a vacuum. Good and bad outcomes are a reflection of various factors the only common thread is that we're always looking out for #1 instead of doing the right thing.

The democracy movement in Iran isn't putting out its hand. They are saying just leave us alone . . . for that matter why don't you leave everybody in the region alone. They've got a legitimate gripe b/c it is our propping up of a despotic Shah that allowed popular revolt to lead to theocracy. Now they are trying to undo it and the last thing they want is help from the US.

As for not being able to afford to assist every country wanting a handout. It's a reasonable statement but as long as we can afford to pay warlords in Afghanistan, protect oil emirates from themselves, and deploy 'limited capability' missile defense systems . . . some will rightfully conclude that its our priorities that determine what we can afford not our wallets.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
More money spent on an already bloated military.

The military is relatively very small nowadays, based on its historical strength, and this is compounded by the fact that we are constantly tasked with responding to small-scale exigencies all over the world.

For that very reason, I am a little leery of spending untold billions on a missile-defense system that will almost certainly never be tested (and may not work if it is tested). That said, the threat of "Star Wars" was the primary reason the Soviet Union spent themselves into oblivion - it is a powerful bargaining chip and a truly frightening prospect to the world's other powers. I just don't know that there is enough of a genuine threat of ICBM attack anymore to justify the spending.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: ScottyB More money spent on an already bloated military.

The military is relatively very small nowadays, based on its historical strength, and this is compounded by the fact that we are constantly tasked with responding to small-scale exigencies all over the world. For that very reason, I am a little leery of spending untold billions on a missile-defense system that will almost certainly never be tested (and may not work if it is tested). That said, the threat of "Star Wars" was the primary reason the Soviet Union spent themselves into oblivion - it is a powerful bargaining chip and a truly frightening prospect to the world's other powers. I just don't know that there is enough of a genuine threat of ICBM attack anymore to justify the spending.

but to have it there will make others think twice about trying to launch any ICBM at us.

 

[Yossarian]

I would feel much safer if an extra $30 billion were used to pay our troops better and improve conventional weapon systems rather than throwing it at the illusory threat of an ICBM attack. 1985 called, it wants the cold war back.

 

[SuperTool]

This system is a joke. It gives us a false sense of security without any real defence worth jack.
What kind of moron would send a nuke missile at the US knowing that we would vaporize the country where it's fired from if they can just stick it in a container and blow it up in a port.
I am not even going to go into the MIRVing of warheads and dummy warheads that could overwhelm this system.
A controlled experiment does not a missile defense make.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

The US already spends more money on military spending than the NEXT 45 NATIONS COMBINED.

Thats about 400+ Billion dollars a YEAR for the DOD alone. That doesnt include all the hidden NSA, FBI, etc costs related to the so called war on terrorism.

This missile defense thing is crap. What PROVES that its crap? That Bush is demanding that we field a broken system. If he said "look, in 10 years there will be a real threat from Iran, by then we need a working system that can stop 20 missiles", THEN I would believe and support him.

NO ONE who counts (other than UK, France, Israel, Russia, China) has missiles that can hit us right now. NO ONE. Period.

We ABSOLUTELY do not need a missile defense system by 2004, 2005, 2006... etc. MAYBE we need one by 2012 or 2015.


These are FACTS. If you want me to find you proof, I will.

The fact that Bush is demanding early deployment means one of two things--

1) Either Iran/NK have some mega missiles and the public is being kept TOTALLY in the dark
2) Bush wants his friends at Boeing, et al to get while he is still in office to do it

Frankly, I lean towards 2 and it makes me sick.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: ScottyB More money spent on an already bloated military.

The military is relatively very small nowadays, based on its historical strength, and this is compounded by the fact that we are constantly tasked with responding to small-scale exigencies all over the world. For that very reason, I am a little leery of spending untold billions on a missile-defense system that will almost certainly never be tested (and may not work if it is tested). That said, the threat of "Star Wars" was the primary reason the Soviet Union spent themselves into oblivion - it is a powerful bargaining chip and a truly frightening prospect to the world's other powers. I just don't know that there is enough of a genuine threat of ICBM attack anymore to justify the spending.

but to have it there will make others think twice about trying to launch any ICBM at us.

They will already think twice.
Anybody launching an ICBM at the US would face certain obliteration. It would be easy to figure out where it came from.
If they really want to detonate a nuke in the US they won't use a missile to get it here.

 

[The Dancing Peacock]

my ass, they missed on their test last Tuesday.

 

[SandLizard]

i think we should turn the moon into a giant space station. and put a "laser" there. and use that "laser" for shooting down things. like big turkeys. mmmm.....thanksgiving all year round. and besides, that way I have a perogative to point at the moon and say, "that's no moon, that's a space station!"

-sandlizard

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

but to have it there will make others think twice about trying to launch any ICBM at us.

I repeat . . . it will not cause anyone of significance to think twice. Saddam will be in a box; either above or below ground. North Korea is NOT a threat to the US now or in the foreseeable future . . . except with the possibility of distributing missile technology to a country/group with the ability to exploit such information. Iran will dissolve into civil war in theocracy vs democracy or they will quietly become a nascent democracy.

States will not think twice b/c those ICBM's have return addresses. This policy is ridiculous . . . it is equivalent to vaccinating your child against smallpox (unapproved for such use) but not sufficiently innoculating against mumps, measles, rubella, polio, diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, strep pneumo, haemophilus influenzae B, and varicella. The emphasis on a perceived future threat over clear present AND future threats is pure folly with catastrophic consequences.