Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Great Guardian article on missile defenceFollow

#27 Aug 21 2008 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,731 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But it's still better to develop the defensive system than not. If for no other reason than it forces the other guy to keep improving his weapons systems.


Or we could, you know, spread the philosophy that violence solves nothing and expouse the benefits of disarmament in terms of feeding starving people and providing universal healthcare, and practice what we preach.

...just kidding.

Quote:
This wont protect you from the guy with the latest in missile systems, but it will protect you from joe random nation tossing anything less than the best at you.


The argument of the journalist is that this isn't the case. I'll take his word over yours as I doubt someone is paying you to research your posts.

Quote:
See. If the other guy is planning something nasty, and you take actions he sees as a threat to his nasty plans and this provokes him into acting, you're better off then if you just hid your head in the sand and let him proceed with his plans without ever taking any action at all.


And if his plan was "react aggressively if they surround us with dual use missile bases" then, haha, job well done.
#28 Aug 21 2008 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Youshutup wrote:


If you haven't tested the new interceptors how can you know how much better they are? Even if they are better it doesn't address the possibility of false positives that could exhaust and overwhelm the defences - one of the main points of the article is that the US could easily go bankrupt defending itself against a country with a modest investment in technologies that could overcome the missile defence system.


Well, the new interceptor is performing much better in laboratory target aquisition tests. They haven't flight tested it yet, but what little data has been leaked seems to indicate a significant increase in capability and flight time. Assuming it all works as planned it should theoretically be much more effective.

The only countries with enough missiles or missile building capability to saturate a missile shield are Russia, and China. Against either of them, the system would probably be useless. Maybe 3 years from now it might do some good, but it isn't designed to counter Russia or China. that's what the still active MAD docterine is for. All those dissasembled missiles and warheads? They are sitting in parts bins in government bunkers, along with complete setsa of instructions and a crash "put all this **** back together quickly" manual. They launch, we launch. We would "win" though the planet would be *******

Missile shield is designed to counter the smaller countries, and to get them to abandon missile delivery programs before they gain the capability.

Eventually somone will fit the whole thing on a cruiser or a submarine and they'll just sail it around the artic circle year round, and the whole Poland thing will be forgotten. Or will it be "Polbekistan" by then?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#29 Aug 21 2008 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If you really want to, we can discuss how effective the Patriot was as an anti-missile system.


Well, at very least we bagged us a few british jets!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#30 Aug 21 2008 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
The guy in a stone castle may still be vulnerable to the catapults and whatnot, but he's a lot safer than if he's standing outside in an empty field.


Irrelevant.

I dont think stone castles have been effective defences for at least a few years now. As the french found out during the early stages of WW1, the aggressors simply went around them..

Same here. If anyone wants to attack someone these days, they dont go attacking thru stone castles...they go around them. you prolly still remember 9/11 for example.

The way this whole missile programme is funded is pretty odd too. It is basically open ended with no stated goals. ie. whenever something doesn't quite work, such as the ability to knock aggressive missiles out of the sky, the whole programme changes its direction without any questions as to where or how the new funds are going to be spent, or where or how the old funds were wasted.


Missile defence is the 21st century version of a stone castle. Hugely expensive and completely useless except as a statement of power. But I guess 'power projection' is where the foreign policy of the US is, and has been, for some time now....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#31 Aug 21 2008 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
fhrugby the Wise wrote:
If it were USA/Europe vs Russia then a missile defense system would be useless ...


Let's stop right there. If it's useless against the Russians, then why is Putin upset? Either they are useless, or they aren't. If they are, then they're no threat to Russia. If they aren't, then the whole "It'll do no good" argument falls apart.

Quote:
I think there is a solution to the problem with the Russians. They see the missile defense system as reducing their nuclear deterrent and therefore making their overall military position weaker. What if we amend our mutual nuclear missile reduction treaties to allow the Russians to increase their total missiles by a number equal to the number of missile interceptors on their border. So if we place 12 missile interceptors on their border, they get to build 12 extra missiles. We still get the defense against lunatic nations and they still have the same deterrent capacity.


They can do that already. It comes back to what I already said. It forces the other guy to upgrade his missile systems, which costs time and money. The hoped for is that Iran doesn't have the tech to do so, and Russia wont want to spend the money. More significantly, by paying attention to what Russia does in response, it gives us a clearer picture of their intentions.

Look. The point here is that this really isn't about the missile defense systems. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is the movement to allow some of the former Soviet States to join NATO. Missile defenses or not, that's the real issue at hand. The missile things are goading points. We want to see how Russia really feels about these nations, so we talk about putting missile defense systems in place. It doesn't really matter if they work or not. What matters is that Russia will react to them in some way, and that reaction tells us something about Russia's plans.


That's what's going on right now. Russia just tipped their hand. Big time. Had we not pushed the missile defense thing, and the NATO thing, it's quite possible that Russia would have simply planned and prepared for some revival of the old Soviet State system in secret only to be revealed the moment they invaded a half dozen nations all at once with overwhelming force and just kinda glared at us daring us to do something about it.

And if we hadn't put any systems in those countries, and we hadn't worked to form treaties with them, we'd have little to no recourse when that happened. By pushing Russia into a response, we now have options and time to implement them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Aug 21 2008 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Sure. But it's still better to develop the defensive system than not. If for no other reason than it forces the other guy to keep improving his weapons systems. We could all just duck our heads in the sand and pretend that no one has anything more dangerous than a spear to chuck at us, but that would be sheer folly.


Or, moron, we could spend the money on other things. Unmanned combat elements we could send to threatened regions when our personal were overextended in a poorly chosen war.

For instance.

Believe it or not, there's a finite sum we can spend on weapons development, spending such a large chunk of it on something trivial to defeat isn't a terribly good idea.


They can do that already. It comes back to what I already said. It forces the other guy to upgrade his missile systems, which costs time and money.


Here's the thing, it doesn't. The SDI thing only works once. We're not working a vacuum here. This is leaving out the part of shockingly trivial and cheap it currently is to defeat the technology.

If you want to sell me on missile defense, set up a legitimate red team that can spend some money in secret developing countermeasures, then launch at any of 10 unpopulated targets without warning.

Of course that will never happen. Can you figure out why?


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Aug 21 2008 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
you mean aside from annoying Canada when we shoot at them 10 times?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#34 Aug 22 2008 at 12:03 AM Rating: Good
This anti-missile defense system isn't meant to protect us against Iran or NK. Seriously, think about it. Iran is never, in a million years, going to chuck a missile at the US. Ever. Neither is NK. If either of those countries wanted to attack the US or Europe, they would do it by proxy, through a third party. Otherwise, they'd get nuked to the ground before they had time to say "Allah Akhbar". Not only that, but it would imply the US is stupid enough to spend billions on dollars on a huge system that might, maybe, one day, protect us against us against one rocket. From countries whose regime will probably change before the AMDS is ready anyway.

It's meant to protect us against China. Obviously they can't say that out loud, but it's the only plausible explanation.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#35 Aug 22 2008 at 10:40 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
The Royal Navy's Sea to Air missile defence system runs at 80% sucsess rate against aircraft, so to say it cannot work is clearly not true.
#36 Aug 22 2008 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The Royal Navy's Sea to Air missile defence system runs at 80% sucsess rate against aircraft, so to say it cannot work is clearly not true.


Shotting a bullet into a target works almost 100% of the time. Shooting a bullet into another bullet fired from the target's position is slightly more challenging.

See the difference? I don't want to shock you here, but missiles achieve slightly higher velocities than jets, and generally when you fire at them the range is longer.

It's a terrible analogy.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#37 Aug 22 2008 at 10:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It's meant to protect us against China.


I hope not, because the scale required to do so would require rationing food to afford the manufacturing costs.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Aug 22 2008 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
It's meant to protect us against China.
I'm fairly sure Chinese ICBMs are still steam-driven.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 22 2008 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

More of that liberal can-do attitude.


Yeah, what would be better is for us just to pretend it does ANYTHING now. We can just wish our way to safety! Wait, wishing doesn't quite capture the level of suckerdom required. Oh, oh, I know! We'll PRAY for God to just reach down and smack the missiles with his mile long cock. Right into the ocean! That'll save money, too!

He's on our side, right?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Aug 22 2008 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
This anti-missile defense system isn't meant to protect us against Iran or NK. Seriously, think about it. Iran is never, in a million years, going to chuck a missile at the US. Ever. Neither is NK. If either of those countries wanted to attack the US or Europe, they would do it by proxy, through a third party.


*cough* They are proxy nations.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Aug 22 2008 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

*cough* They are proxy nations.


Iran's not a proxy nation for China. North Kora, sure.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)