billvon 2,990 #1 February 25, 2003 So Bush is very keen on a missile defense program. It's a good idea - a network of missiles that could shoot down an incoming ICBM - but it's been plauged with problems. Even under ideal test conditions, fewer than half of the tests succeeded (i.e. met their original objectives.) Contractors, desperate to show that their system was successful, have stooped to changing some of the test criteria _after_ the test to make it successful i.e. claimed a more powerful warhead could have taken out the incoming missile. In any case, it's a good idea, but one that needs a lot more R+D work. There's money for it in the budget, which I originally assumed was for that R+D. Well, I just found out that it's for development of the final system itself, and the system is going to be deployed in 2004. Furthermore, Bush wants to exempt it from testing. There is a congressional requirement that weapons systems ordered for the military actually work, and he is seeking an exception to this rule. This seems like a very bad idea. It's a very new technology, and _must_ be tested extensively to find out all the bugs - there are problems that we don't even know about yet in that environment. We're talking closing speeds of 30,000 miles an hour, and a navigation system that can both accurately target the warhead and ignore decoys at those speeds. It would suck to spend 70 billion on a missile defense system and never even know if it works, and it would suck even more to rely on it and then have its first test fail as a missile from North Korea came flying over Alaska. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #2 February 25, 2003 I could ramble on and on, but the short version seems the best...I agree with you. Concept is good, but we're no where near a practical working platform. Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #3 February 25, 2003 I do not in anyway want to come off sounding like a prick, but here is a little inside info from someone who know some of this stuff personally. The media would have you believe it is far worse than it really is. The faults tent to be over-exagerated due to "nonrealistic" testing conditions. The variables at play are great, and yes, it is prone to missing much like the patriot missiles in the Gulf War1. Try shooting a bullet with a bullet!!! However, so much $$$ has been invested in R&D and testing, that the production system needs to be put in place as a cost savings measure!!! So, will it work if a Nuke were launched would it work?? Well if it has a 50% hit rate, several missiles will be launched with the hope at least 1 would hit. Half of the system is a psychological one. If you knew the USA had an anti missile system, would you run the risk of "TRYING" to hit the US and failing? It will cost more to keep testing, and something is better than nothing, especially when the threat is growing. My $.02 Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #4 February 25, 2003 Interesting stuff Bill, do you have a source? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #5 February 25, 2003 QuoteTry shooting a bullet with a bullet!!! However, so much $$$ has been invested in R&D and testing, that the production system needs to be put in place as a cost savings measure!!! Uhm.. Hmm.. We need to spend more money to save money? Or are We, the public, supposed to stop R&D and implement a shitty product that doesn't work to protect our families? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #6 February 25, 2003 I think the Patriot hit rate was about 10% and then a few of the hit missles actually landed in populated areas. I say you wait till the system gets about 95% hit rates then finalize it. Last report I saw on Star Wars missles and its misses was published by the GAO, please tell me that they were wrong about these numbers. If it goes final and misses a inbound I think that the contractors will take the lead over Mircosoft for releasing buggy products Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 February 25, 2003 Quote We, the public, supposed to stop R&D and implement a shitty product that doesn't work Hey, don't knock it! It worked out great for Microsoft!! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #8 February 25, 2003 QuoteI think the Patriot hit rate was about 10% and then a few of the hit missles actually landed in populated areas. I say you wait till the system gets about 95% hit rates then finalize it. The problem with the Patriot was that it was not designed to shoot missiles. It was an anti-aircraft missile defense system. They were actually surprised that it did hit the missiles. Its problem was that it hit the missile but didn't destroy the warheads. They separated from the explosion and then exploded on the ground. As for the missile defense system, I would like read both sides of the argument before I make a decision. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhammond 0 #9 February 25, 2003 Bill, In a perfect world I would agree with you on requirements for testing development and deployment ... but we are far from a perfect world. a majority of the system, as planned is deterrence just like the fake police officers "cardboard cut outs " imitating a speed trap. I ask would you? if you were a psychotic dictator with a couple nukes threaten to lob them at us if say we didn't offer free gas, oil, big mac's you name it to appease them. it is not that far off, so far N. Korea has kicked out international inspectors, backed out of several agreements, encroached the DMZ, had fighters overfly S. Korea, fired missiles, the whole time saying they can kick our ass and win a nuke war.... sure we out number them some 6500 to 3 in nukes, Im not sure what our current count is but its up there.. you might want to step back and take a fresh look through non engineering eyes that require the system to function flawlessly to "work" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #10 February 25, 2003 Of course it will work as planned. Its mission is to make profit for defense contractors. As for a real test - I'd put it up against an "incoming" that was designed by engineers who would be given a bonus of $10,000,000 if they could get past the "shield", and with no details of the "incoming" given to the defense team. Of course, that will never happen. The tests up to now have been bogus, since the defenders knew exactly what to expect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #11 February 25, 2003 Seeing as how we are dealing with incoming missiles, capable of killing thousands in one fell swoop, I'd take the chance that any one of them stopped would be a good thing. Yes, I'd like for it to be a better system before implementation, but stopping just one makes it worth while. Put it in place and continue improving it. Hell the govt. has wasted more money of less important goals.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #12 February 25, 2003 QuoteQuote Even under ideal test conditions, fewer than half of the tests succeeded. It would suck to spend 70 billion on a missile defense system and never even know if it works. I live on the west coast and I think that <50% is a hell of a lot better than <0%. If it works we'll love it, if it doesn't well I guess all of us over here on the west coast wont care as we will just be vapour anyway, but it would suck a lot more than 70 billion dollars would. Money well spent I think, those North Korean leaders are crazy, they fired a missile into the sea of Japan today, and I don't think they did it just for fun. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2796067.stm And being a cynic, it will look at lot better when Bush comes up fro re-election if he can say he has put up a defense shield to protect us all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #13 February 25, 2003 >you might want to step back and take a fresh look through non >engineering eyes that require the system to function flawlessly to "work" Some things don't have to work well - if 1 out of every 5 dumb bomb fails to deliver its rated yield, no big deal. Drop an extra one per bomb run. Some things have to work well. A missile defense system is one of them. A poorly functioning missile defense system is far more dangerous to us than none at all. An example - North Korea rattles its sabre some more. We tell them "you must disarm." They say no. We threaten sanctions; they offer to cut their arsenal from 12 to 6. We tell them that's unacceptable. Things get heated. The US sends troops to South Korea. N Korea tells the US that any aggression will be met by an overwhelming response against the continental US. Now consider the case if there is no missile shield. Bush now treads very carefully; he dare not incite N Korea to launch a missile at the US; the results of a 5 megaton missile over Anchorage is too horrible to contemplate. N Korea also becomes very cautious; they know the response if they do launch a missile (and it hits its target) the result will be the complete annihiliation of their country. Now consider the case if there is a faulty (but claimed effective) missile shield. N Korea may consider their first missile a warning shot; after all, we will just shoot it down, but then the US will take N Korea seriously and believe they have the ability to harm us. Bush will feel he has a freer hand; after all, if they do launch a missile, we can stop it. Both leaders are much more likely to choose a path that leads to N Korea launching a missile. If the missile shield is only 50% effective (which it currently isn't; it's worse than that) then we have greatly increased the odds of a nuclear weapon being detonated over the US. And that, to me, makes a faulty missile shield a very bad idea. We lived for 30 years with the USSR without destroying each other partly because the results of either country launching even one ICBM were too terrible to contemplate. A missile shield will make it much easier to take that chance; a lone missile will become a 'shot across the bow' rather than the reason for World War III. If we choose to live in that sort of world, we better be damn sure the missile shield can live up to its name BEFORE we rely on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #14 February 25, 2003 Quotethey know the response if they do launch a missile (and it hits its target) the result will be the complete annihiliation of their country. Actucally, if it hits it's target or not isn't important. If its launched against the US, our course of action would be to turn N. Korea into a large, rocky parking lot...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #15 February 25, 2003 >I live on the west coast and I think that <50% is a hell of a lot better than <0%. Even if having a missile shield makes other countries more likely to fire missiles, and makes our government more willing to take chances on other countries launching missiles? I'd rather no missiles to begin with, over a 50% chance of stopping one, any day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #16 February 25, 2003 QuoteI'd rather no missiles to begin with, over a 50% chance of stopping one, any day. Sure. However, I know you're a very smart guy, and you know that this is like the everlasting gun debate. There will never be another point in time where there are no missles. This is like the debate back in the 1500s about the Long Bow....--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #17 February 25, 2003 >and you know that this is like the everlasting gun debate. So is the answer to the gun debate that all US citizens wear bulletproof vests to stop gun violence? Or is responsible use of guns a better answer? Is the best solution to stop the bullets once they're on their way to you, rather than before they leave the gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #18 February 25, 2003 >Actucally, if it hits it's target or not isn't important. Oh, it's extremely important. Let's say in 10 years that China launches a missile in our direction. We destroy it in the boost phase. China says "Hey, why'd you shoot down our communications satellite? You want we should shoot down your shuttle?" They might or might not get away with it, but they may well _think_ they can, which is the important issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KawiZX900 0 #19 February 25, 2003 glass parking lot Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #20 February 25, 2003 Hey bill... the Russia comment doesn't work here. The Russians were not "Crazy" fo one, and we were also under a treaty with russia not to create a missile defense system! We very recently broke that treaty! Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #21 February 25, 2003 You are crazy... Having a shield does not make one "MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT" one. If that were the thought, then NO cops would wear a bullet proof vest, because wearing one makes criminals more likely to shoot them? A country with a few missiles is not going to waste 30% of its arsenal trying to hit the US. They are going to make DAMN sure they hit thier target. Attempting to lob a nuke at the US is just as bad as actually doing it. The end result will be the same. We will kill them. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #22 February 25, 2003 "QuoteOf course it will work as planned. Its mission is to make profit for defense contractors." end quote. Yes, The missile system worked as well as British Columbia's "fast Cat" ferry boats. Who cares if they were expensive, slow and unreliable, they achieved their primary goal which was to keep unionized shipyard worlers employed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rgoper 0 #23 February 25, 2003 Quoteglass parking lot yeah, that'd show em' wouldn't it. hey look, my balls are bigger than yours, now i have to spend american taxpayers money to rebuild your country i just destroyed just to show you who's got the biggest dick. COME OF IT. this is juvinile mentality. this is human lives, and god's earth we're talking about. if you guys believe ol' wyubya is telling us the truth all of the time, i have some ocean front property in arizona i'd like to sell you. bush and powell are idiots, they may well be our undoing. so far, except for 09/11 we are the only country who hasn't suffered mass casualties and property loss, the people have, they're acclaimated to it, unless you willing to travel to these foriegn lands, don't be so quick to judgement. i have first hand information to back up what BillVon spoke of, if he doesn't, but i can assure you, he knows what he's talking about. "who's policing the police?"--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #24 February 25, 2003 A lot of university research is funded by corporations looking for cheap labor to work on "proof of concept" projects. For defense groups, a lot of pure research must be funded, experimented and tried. Some works, some doesn't. Remember the space race of the 60's ? The Russians had put a rocket into space and everyone went "holy s-" because we weren't even thinking about it. Some programs are just R&D. At the current time, they don't work. It may be necessary to have 3 projects to find one that works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #25 February 25, 2003 QuoteA lot of university research is funded by corporations looking for cheap labor to work on "proof of concept" projects. For defense groups, a lot of pure research must be funded, experimented and tried. Some works, some doesn't. Remember the space race of the 60's ? The Russians had put a rocket into space and everyone went "holy s-" because we weren't even thinking about it. Some programs are just R&D. At the current time, they don't work. It may be necessary to have 3 projects to find one that works. The biggest problem I have with this concept is that I don't know who told the bad guys they have to deliver their WMDs by rocket. Rockets are very difficult delivery systems to use. The US has incredibly porous boundaries. If the (name your bad guys) want to deliver a nuke or smallpox or plague or VX to Houston or Seattle, all they need do is hire a drug lord to get it there for them. Probably it's there already, just waiting for the right moment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rgoper 0 #23 February 25, 2003 Quoteglass parking lot yeah, that'd show em' wouldn't it. hey look, my balls are bigger than yours, now i have to spend american taxpayers money to rebuild your country i just destroyed just to show you who's got the biggest dick. COME OF IT. this is juvinile mentality. this is human lives, and god's earth we're talking about. if you guys believe ol' wyubya is telling us the truth all of the time, i have some ocean front property in arizona i'd like to sell you. bush and powell are idiots, they may well be our undoing. so far, except for 09/11 we are the only country who hasn't suffered mass casualties and property loss, the people have, they're acclaimated to it, unless you willing to travel to these foriegn lands, don't be so quick to judgement. i have first hand information to back up what BillVon spoke of, if he doesn't, but i can assure you, he knows what he's talking about. "who's policing the police?"--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #24 February 25, 2003 A lot of university research is funded by corporations looking for cheap labor to work on "proof of concept" projects. For defense groups, a lot of pure research must be funded, experimented and tried. Some works, some doesn't. Remember the space race of the 60's ? The Russians had put a rocket into space and everyone went "holy s-" because we weren't even thinking about it. Some programs are just R&D. At the current time, they don't work. It may be necessary to have 3 projects to find one that works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #25 February 25, 2003 QuoteA lot of university research is funded by corporations looking for cheap labor to work on "proof of concept" projects. For defense groups, a lot of pure research must be funded, experimented and tried. Some works, some doesn't. Remember the space race of the 60's ? The Russians had put a rocket into space and everyone went "holy s-" because we weren't even thinking about it. Some programs are just R&D. At the current time, they don't work. It may be necessary to have 3 projects to find one that works. The biggest problem I have with this concept is that I don't know who told the bad guys they have to deliver their WMDs by rocket. Rockets are very difficult delivery systems to use. The US has incredibly porous boundaries. If the (name your bad guys) want to deliver a nuke or smallpox or plague or VX to Houston or Seattle, all they need do is hire a drug lord to get it there for them. Probably it's there already, just waiting for the right moment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)