Quote:
Originally Posted by rathi  Missiles don't have a predetermined path, and even if they did, we wouldn't know it beforehand. |
They're called ballistic missiles for a reason - they follow a ballistic path.
And their path, determined at the time of booter burn-out, is then easily calculated.
Thus, your 'dont know the path ahead of time' argument is meaningless.
Quote:
|
Under conditions that don't exist in the real world. It was testing designed for proof-of-concept and testing technological elements. It does not accurately test real-world performance.
|
Tell me:
Does the testing show that the concept - hitting incoling targets with kenetic-kill interceptors - is proven?
Be honest, now...
Quote:
|
Correct. Many of those system all failed rather badly, see ABM in the gulf war. However, they still received testing that simulated battlefield experience, which this system has not.
|
Simulated battlefield? Sure it has. Each of the tests simulate the battlefield, even if only part of it.
Quote:
|
Yeah and I can dodge bullets if you tell me where they are going to aim at and when they are going to be fired. However, in real life, I get shot and the missiles don't get intercepted.
|
Non sequitur.
Quote:
|
I don't agree, but I will concede the point because I don't really care. Assuming you are correct, what are the implications.
|
That conditions now mean nothing regarding conditions 30 years from now.
There's no way at all you can argue that we won't face a threat in the relatively near future that will necessitate a NMD.
Quote:
|
So if an personal with irrational fears was pointing a gun at your head, you wouldn't try and keep them calm?
|
We're not trying to "calm them' - we're offering to blow the guy with the gun to make him go away.
The NMD has no effect on Russian detrrent. All of our actions should be considered under that fact.