Reagan's Star Wars system???Originally posted by: Aimster
Why is the media making a big deal out of this?
Doesn't the U.S have a missile defense system that can knock out incoming North Korean missiles?
Doesn't Japan also have a similiar system in place?
Originally posted by: screech
IIRC, we have a defense program that works about 50% of the time in tests.......it's been a while since it's been in the news, though.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Why is the media making a big deal out of this?
Originally posted by: Aimster
Why is the media making a big deal out of this?
Doesn't the U.S have a missile defense system that can knock out incoming North Korean missiles?
Doesn't Japan also have a similiar system in place?
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: Aimster
Why is the media making a big deal out of this?
Mid-term election scare mongering (vote Republican or NK will blow up your church)
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
No, we don't. Our missile-defense system was produced by people who gave us "Duke Nukem Forever". In the latest test, we could get a hit less than 50% of the time, and that's given that the initial launch trajectory of the missile was GIVEN to the interceptor... rather than the system having to calculate it. As a matter of fact, the system has NEVER successfully intercepted a missile under realistic conditions, nor is it likely to ever do so.Originally posted by: Aimster
Doesn't the U.S have a missile defense system that can knock out incoming North Korean missiles?
Originally posted by: Meuge
No, we don't. Our missile-defense system was produced by people who gave us "Duke Nukem Forever". In the latest test, we could get a hit less than 50% of the time, and that's given that the initial launch trajectory of the missile was GIVEN to the interceptor... rather than the system having to calculate it. As a matter of fact, the system has NEVER successfully intercepted a missile under realistic conditions, nor is it likely to ever do so.Originally posted by: Aimster
Doesn't the U.S have a missile defense system that can knock out incoming North Korean missiles?
The missile defense system is an easy way to transfer VERY large sums of money from public pockets into private ones, and does not add ANYTHING to our national security.
P.S. And even if everything I said was wrong, and the system worked, it would still be of no consequence, since it's not deployed.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: Meuge
No, we don't. Our missile-defense system was produced by people who gave us "Duke Nukem Forever". In the latest test, we could get a hit less than 50% of the time, and that's given that the initial launch trajectory of the missile was GIVEN to the interceptor... rather than the system having to calculate it. As a matter of fact, the system has NEVER successfully intercepted a missile under realistic conditions, nor is it likely to ever do so.Originally posted by: Aimster
Doesn't the U.S have a missile defense system that can knock out incoming North Korean missiles?
The missile defense system is an easy way to transfer VERY large sums of money from public pockets into private ones, and does not add ANYTHING to our national security.
P.S. And even if everything I said was wrong, and the system worked, it would still be of no consequence, since it's not deployed.
It also makes a good campaign commercial to those who don't know anything about its inabilities.
Originally posted by: halik
IIRC it was 3 hits out of 7 missiles when the trajectory was known.... not the best performance even in unrealistic conditions
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
IIRC it was 3 hits out of 7 missiles when the trajectory was known.... not the best performance even in unrealistic conditions
So, when something doesn't succeed 100% of the time we should just stop investing?
Imagine if Edison had done that, or any number of inventors who went through thousands of iterations.
You people are rediculous to think that something so complex as the ABM will work flawlessly in it's infancy. We proved with the Patriots that the system can work, it has been improved and the PAC-3 made huge leaps in the right direction.
Give it time and resources and it *will* work.
Also keep in mind that a couple of those failures were not because of interception issues. I am sure somebody will point out "Well, since they failed to launch, it's a failure".
How many rockets did we go through before we even got out of the atmosphere? Even now, we are failing, but that is part of the learning process.
Originally posted by: halik
The point was that if Kim goes nuts and sends one this way, odds are that we won't catch it.
Russia's S400 system is 90%+ effective against cruise missiles, and 70%+ against low-trajector short/medium-range ballistics (SCUDs). So far it's the only truly effective anti-ballistic system in the world. The Israelis have upgraded the Patriot system with exquisitely good software and much better radar and targeting, and can reliably hit short-range ballistics and cruise missiles.Originally posted by: Aimster
so no country in the world has a proven missile defense system?
Israel?
Japan?
Russia?
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
IIRC it was 3 hits out of 7 missiles when the trajectory was known.... not the best performance even in unrealistic conditions
So, when something doesn't succeed 100% of the time we should just stop investing?
Imagine if Edison had done that, or any number of inventors who went through thousands of iterations.
You people are rediculous to think that something so complex as the ABM will work flawlessly in it's infancy. We proved with the Patriots that the system can work, it has been improved and the PAC-3 made huge leaps in the right direction.
Give it time and resources and it *will* work.
Also keep in mind that a couple of those failures were not because of interception issues. I am sure somebody will point out "Well, since they failed to launch, it's a failure".
How many rockets did we go through before we even got out of the atmosphere? Even now, we are failing, but that is part of the learning process.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
The point was that if Kim goes nuts and sends one this way, odds are that we won't catch it.
Why? Because tests of older systems didn't work 100% of the time? Isn't something better than nothing while the progress continues?
Is past performance a perfect predictor of future in a dynamic and improving environment?
So, because 2 launches ago a shuttle burned up, means that we shouldn't launch the next shuttle in 2 weeks?
Some people look for *ANY* excuse to rip into others. It's quite pathetic that you are so willing to grasp one technology and it's iterative process, but bash the hell out of another.
Now, if you want to talk about the merits of spending billions on a project where the real threat doesn't lie with NK, China, or Russia, but with terrorists, then I'd support you.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
If anything, this should serve as a clear message the failure of the entire GOP in the War on Terror. We attacked a country that was no threat to us, and let North Korea develop missles that can actually harm us.
Way to go Republicans, you sure know how to protect Amurica!
No he's right - odds are we won't be able to shoot it down. You seem to be ranting over nothing, except your inability to grasp the fact that so far missile defense is somewhat of a pipe dream. Whether or not you want to continue throwing cash down that hole depends upon your priorities.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
The point was that if Kim goes nuts and sends one this way, odds are that we won't catch it.
Why? Because tests of older systems didn't work 100% of the time? Isn't something better than nothing while the progress continues?
Is past performance a perfect predictor of future in a dynamic and improving environment?
So, because 2 launches ago a shuttle burned up, means that we shouldn't launch the next shuttle in 2 weeks?
Some people look for *ANY* excuse to rip into others. It's quite pathetic that you are so willing to grasp one technology and it's iterative process, but bash the hell out of another.
Now, if you want to talk about the merits of spending billions on a project where the real threat doesn't lie with NK, China, or Russia, but with terrorists, then I'd support you.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No he's right - odds are we won't be able to shoot it down. You seem to be ranting over nothing, except your inability to grasp the fact that so far missile defense is somewhat of a pipe dream. Whether or not you want to continue throwing cash down that hole depends upon your priorities.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
The point was that if Kim goes nuts and sends one this way, odds are that we won't catch it.
Why? Because tests of older systems didn't work 100% of the time? Isn't something better than nothing while the progress continues?
Is past performance a perfect predictor of future in a dynamic and improving environment?
So, because 2 launches ago a shuttle burned up, means that we shouldn't launch the next shuttle in 2 weeks?
Some people look for *ANY* excuse to rip into others. It's quite pathetic that you are so willing to grasp one technology and it's iterative process, but bash the hell out of another.
Now, if you want to talk about the merits of spending billions on a project where the real threat doesn't lie with NK, China, or Russia, but with terrorists, then I'd support you.
Originally posted by: halik
Occham's Razor
Is it more plausible that a system with track record of failure under controlled conditions will fail if used today or would you think it will miraculously intercept and destroy a long range ICBP in real conditions?
It seems like you're sitting with your fingers crossed thinking happy happy thoughts...
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: halik
Occham's Razor
Is it more plausible that a system with track record of failure under controlled conditions will fail if used today or would you think it will miraculously intercept and destroy a long range ICBP in real conditions?
It seems like you're sitting with your fingers crossed thinking happy happy thoughts...
ROFL, Occham's Razor applies when all other variables are equal. In this case, the variables are not equal and technology has progressed.
I guess the Wright Brothers shoulda applied occam's? Or Goddard? Bell? Edison?
It seems to me that you are only willing to accept your own inability to deal with progress in your zeal to rip on others.
I am, by no means, sitting around with my fingers crossed. I am advocating further development. It is a lofty goal, but one which is possible. To deny that is to deny the basic ideal that humans can progress and knowledge can advance.
In your blind zeal, if you had actually read my post, I also am not even sure of the definite applicability of an ABM system, considering the real threat isn't really from NK. But then again, people like you would rather make your own assumptions and pigeonhole others.