US Missile Defense test fails in Alaska, first in over 2 yrs, missile can't even follow script

[ReiAyanami]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/....defense.ap/index.html

i always wondered, couldn't we just make a beeline of nukes to take out a single missile? i mean its not like republicans care about the ocean anyway

because any system that tries to intercept thousands of warheads is bound to fail (china in 2035)
even 95% accuracy means 50+ nukes hits our homeland

but $250b to stop a single nuke (NK) seems ridiculous if the beeline nuke would work

we could be on Mars with that money

 

[SuperTool]

Keeps the federal dough coming to CA. Good enough for me.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
because any system that tries to intercept thousands of warheads is bound to fail (china in 2035)
even 95% accuracy means 50+ nukes hits our homeland

I thought that it wasn't meant for such a large arsenal.

 

[DanJ]

More useless spending on failure. The Bush M.O.

 

[Spamela]

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

with those odds, just think of all the domestic cleanup work for Halliburton.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Wow. Something didn't go right in a highly complex ssytem during a T&A phase.

May as well stick a fork in it now. It's obviously a total failure.

 

[drewshin]

spend money for missile defense system, in a few years there'll be a way to get around it. russians already seem to be close to finding a way around it. then the whole cycle starts all over again.
it's a perpetual money machine for the defense industry.

i personally like a glass bubble idea, both to cover air attacks and underwater attacks. i think it would be well worth it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow. Something didn't go right in a highly complex ssytem during a T&A phase.

May as well stick a fork in it now. It's obviously a total failure.

Yup. Let's give up on anything that is difficult or that has problems in development stages.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow. Something didn't go right in a highly complex ssytem during a T&A phase.

May as well stick a fork in it now. It's obviously a total failure.

Yup. Let's give up on anything that is difficult or that has problems in development stages.

If it's so worthwhile, then lets raise taxes to pay for it then instead of borrowing more money?

 

[BBond]

Isn't this Bush version of Star Wars the focus of his administration while the impending terrorist attacks Bush was warned about were coming to fruition?

I wonder what threats the Bush administration is ignoring now as they spend, spend, spend on useless systems that can't even shoot down choreographed targets.

White House Chose Missile Defense Over Al Qaeda

 

[ReiAyanami]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yup. Let's give up on anything that is difficult or that has problems in development stages.

if a beeline of nukes can stop an incoming nuke, then there is no need to waste $250 billion. the $250 billion would be better spent on a colony on mars or paying down debt (which is a greater threat to natl security)

or finding osama

 

[KidViciou$]

u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow. Something didn't go right in a highly complex ssytem during a T&A phase.

May as well stick a fork in it now. It's obviously a total failure.

Things are bound to fail. On good projects, you have failures, you learn from the failures, and have a good final product. On bad projects, you have failures, you learn from the failurs, and still have a bad final product.

Many people feel that this isn't a good project. Here is a very short list of the huge number of reasons.
1) Sept 11th showed that missiles aren't needed for mass destruction. We could have a perfect missile defense program and still be subject to the same damage from other countries/terrorists.
2) It was never designed to handle multiple missiles. What country, in what war, will send just one missile to the US?
3) The technology isn't ready. The good idea is to wait until the technology is ready, to have a chance to learn from the failures. However, the timeline that was given (building this a couple years ago) doesn't allow the time to adequately test and learn from failures.
4) The cost is too high for the limited benefit. Sure if you are one of the 100 people killed by a missile that get through, you wouldn't mind the tremendous cost. However, lifes still need to have a price tag. There are other projects that cost less and could save more lives. Why are we ignoring those? The return for our money is just too low on missile defense.

#2-#4 could be solved with time. #1 has no real solutions. Lets give them time to solve the problems and THEN build the defense.

The tests so far have been nearly useless. They say a missle will be at point X at time T. Then on about half of the tests an interceptor has been able to be at point X at time T. Sounds great. But when will our enemy tell us that information? The tests so far are so rudimentary that they don't even come close to the complexity of the real world. Even in this simple case, there is widespread failure. Lets fix it and THEN build. Not the other way around. But that is politics.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/....defense.ap/index.html

i always wondered, couldn't we just make a beeline of nukes to take out a single missile? i mean its not like republicans care about the ocean anyway

because any system that tries to intercept thousands of warheads is bound to fail (china in 2035)
even 95% accuracy means 50+ nukes hits our homeland

but $250b to stop a single nuke (NK) seems ridiculous if the beeline nuke would work

we could be on Mars with that money

If, god forbid, we do get attacked by a nuclear weapon and this stops it, I'm sure a lot of people will be saying this was worth well more than it cost. If we were to not build it, and someone like NK nuked us, we'd be saying why didn't we build a MDS.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
If, god forbid, we do get attacked by a nuclear weapon and this stops it, I'm sure a lot of people will be saying this was worth well more than it cost. If we were to not build it, and someone like NK nuked us, we'd be saying why didn't we build a MDS.

Which goes back to my point that we can't save all lives from everything in the world. But with a limited amount of money we have to try to save as many lives as possible. At the moment, missile defense has a very low probable life saved / $$$ ratio. Other projects have a much higher ratio. So at the moment, save a million lives and let the thousand die.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ntdz
If, god forbid, we do get attacked by a nuclear weapon and this stops it, I'm sure a lot of people will be saying this was worth well more than it cost. If we were to not build it, and someone like NK nuked us, we'd be saying why didn't we build a MDS.

Which goes back to my point that we can't save all lives from everything in the world. But with a limited amount of money we have to try to save as many lives as possible. At the moment, missile defense has a very low probable life saved / $$$ ratio. Other projects have a much higher ratio. So at the moment, save a million lives and let the thousand die.

:thumbsup:

*Caugh* Like terrorism defense *Caugh*

 

[ReiAyanami]

seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

if we were serious about stopping nukes, we would have much tougher border inspections to the point where only a few hundred make it across each day (as opposed to 6,000/day), even including fresh off the boats. and it probably wouldn't even cost anywhere near $250 billion. the net effect of this is that we would actually win the war on drugs, even if unintentionally

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

a working missile shield that actually downs a [single] nuke removes our capability for retaliating with a nuke. because then we would not be able to justify a largescale loss of civilian lives because technically we are no longer under imminent threat (assuming we can shoot down every [singular] incoming nuke one at a time)

not to mention the diplomatic ramifications of voiding the ABM treaties

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

if we were serious about stopping nukes, we would have much tougher border inspections to the point where only a few hundred make it across each day (as opposed to 6,000/day), even including fresh off the boats. and it probably wouldn't even cost anywhere near $250 billion. the net effect of this is that we would actually win the war on drugs, even if unintentionally

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

a working missile shield that actually downs a [single] nuke removes our capability for retaliating with a nuke. because then we would not be able to justify a largescale loss of civilian lives because technically we are no longer under imminent threat (assuming we can shoot down ever [singular] incoming nuke one at a time)

not to mention the diplomatic ramifications of voiding the ABM treaties

We have radiation detectors all along the border (and satalites that do the same) and in airports/ports that inspect the stuff. You don't have to scan all the cargo to find a nuclear weapon, it'll pick up the radiation being emitted.

 

[Strk]

Patriot missiles aren't 100%, so why would this be much different?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

 

[f95toli]

Interesting link


here

 

[KidViciou$]

i don't have the resource at hand, but i remember reading a couple articles, possibly from yahoo news, a few months ago about how there were few tests performed, and we were still going ahead without fixing the problems

 

[Red Dawn]

If we can somehow create an Missile Defense System that is 100% accurate then we can use our Nuclear Arsenal without fear of retaliation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i don't have the resource at hand, but i remember reading a couple articles, possibly from yahoo news, a few months ago about how there were few tests performed, and we were still going ahead without fixing the problems

Howwever most of the tests have been successful. I would doubt that any problems found would go unfixed.