Russia tests ICBM designed to overcome missile shield

rathi · 08-29-08, 06:47 PM

Quote:

YOu need to catch up on your news. This was my last ship.

You need to reed your news more carefully. Medium range ballistic missiles are not ICBMs. ICBMs are much much faster and harder to hit. Furthermore, the correlation between successful testing of America anti-missile systems and their real world performance is not very high.

obvious Child · 08-29-08, 07:14 PM

ICBM defense is a joke:

Quote:

All the trials run so far - successful or otherwise - have been rigged. The target, its type, trajectory and destination, are known before the test begins. Only one enemy missile is used, as the system doesn't have a hope in hell of knocking down two or more. If decoy missiles are deployed, they bear no resemblance to the target and they are identified as decoys in advance. In order to try to enhance the appearance of success, recent flight tests have become even less realistic: the agency has now stopped using decoys altogether when testing its GMD system.

George Monbiot: The US missile defence system is the magic pudding that will never run out | Comment is free | The Guardian

Quote:

“This test was as scripted as it can be,” he said. “It’s a very complicated test, technically, but it’s much simpler than dealing with an actual missile launch would be.” In a real-life attack, he said, far less would be known about the timing, trajectory and characteristics of an incoming warhead.

Missile Defense System Intercepts Rocket in Test - New York Times

Even FOX admits they were scripted

Quote:

The system was successful in five of eight previous tests in highly scripted attempts to intercept a target missile carrying a mock warhead.

FOXNews.com - Missile Defense Tests Could Restart in Fall - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Quote:

Remarkably, the recent MDA test was less challenging than many of its predecessors because the target missile completely lacked countermeasures such as decoys, balloons, chaff, or radar absorbing material, each of which can be effective in defeating missile defense systems like GMD

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: For U.S. Missile Defense, Heavily Scripted Success Does Not Equal Security

National Missile Defense is a giant welfare program designed to get votes.

tryreading · 08-29-08, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

ICBM defense is a joke:

George Monbiot: The US missile defence system is the magic pudding that will never run out | Comment is free | The Guardian

Missile Defense System Intercepts Rocket in Test - New York Times

Even FOX admits they were scripted

FOXNews.com - Missile Defense Tests Could Restart in Fall - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: For U.S. Missile Defense, Heavily Scripted Success Does Not Equal Security

National Missile Defense is a giant welfare program designed to get votes.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Missile defense doesn't work. We actually can't stop one ICBM, much less a significant offensive missile strike.

So we have escalated a military situation against arms which actually work, by proposing to install a defense system that does not. This is the action of fools.

obvious Child · 08-29-08, 08:01 PM

I still can't figure out why a country like Iran or North Korea would bother with a missile when they can send a cargo container with a nuke. Or a donkey over the Mexican border.

Missile defense proponents seem like the most ignorant, narrow minded people ever who can't even consider the possibility of an alternative strike method.

RightinNYC · 09-01-08, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I see what you mean. It's another arms race. Bush could have prevented this in my opinion.

Except there's no arms race. No missile shield on earth can stop even a handful of missiles fired simultaneously. Any one of half a dozen countries could still destroy the world instantly. Nothing's changed.

RightinNYC · 09-01-08, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Discretionary welfare makes up something like 1% of the total budget.
And the entitlement programs are the result of bipartisan actions.

Are you calling former President Eisenhower a liberal?

1. Discretionary "welfare" is approximately 5-10% of the total budget, depending on how you define welfare

2. A large part of mandatory spending is "welfare" as well. The actual welfare program, Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare, SS, etc. - all of these are mandatory and are huge portions of the budget. DHHS is approx $700b alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I still can't figure out why a country like Iran or North Korea would bother with a missile when they can send a cargo container with a nuke. Or a donkey over the Mexican border.

Missile defense proponents seem like the most ignorant, narrow minded people ever who can't even consider the possibility of an alternative strike method.

I think it's highly unlikely that any nation would actually decide to use either of those methods to transport a nuclear device into the US. I'm also willing to bet that the many, many people whose job it is to think about and prepare against these types of things are a lot more intelligent and open-minded than people posting on an internet forum.

American · 09-01-08, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Check your presidents.

You are incorrect.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, the period should have been a question mark. But thanks for the correction and making my point.

obvious Child · 09-01-08, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

1. Discretionary "welfare" is approximately 5-10% of the total budget, depending on how you define welfare

Well that's the rub isn't it?

Quote:

2. A large part of mandatory spending is "welfare" as well. The actual welfare program, Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare, SS, etc. - all of these are mandatory and are huge portions of the budget. DHHS is approx $700b alone.

Hence why I referred to the 1% as discretionary. The rest of the entitlements are mandatory.

Quote:

I think it's highly unlikely that any nation would actually decide to use either of those methods to transport a nuclear device into the US. I'm also willing to bet that the many, many people whose job it is to think about and prepare against these types of things are a lot more intelligent and open-minded than people posting on an internet forum.

It's highly unlikely that either nation would actually use the weapon. Those regimes are dedicated to staying in power. Using a traceable nuke DOES NOT result in their survival. North Korea will only use their weapon if their regime is about to be destroyed. There are internal reasons for why that nuke is going sit there and collect dust. Essentially it's a giant symbolistic monument as to why the regime should be in power. Most of the fears on NK are about exportation of know how, not actual weapons.

RightinNYC · 09-01-08, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Well that's the rub isn't it?

Hence why I referred to the 1% as discretionary. The rest of the entitlements are mandatory.

"Mandatory" in that they're freed from the trouble of being reauthorized each year. Congress can still modify or eliminate these programs at will. IMO, the term "mandatory" is a bit of a misnomer.

Quote:

It's highly unlikely that either nation would actually use the weapon. Those regimes are dedicated to staying in power. Using a traceable nuke DOES NOT result in their survival. North Korea will only use their weapon if their regime is about to be destroyed. There are internal reasons for why that nuke is going sit there and collect dust. Essentially it's a giant symbolistic monument as to why the regime should be in power. Most of the fears on NK are about exportation of know how, not actual weapons.

Which is probably why people aren't worried about them tossing a nuke on a donkey.

American · 09-01-08, 05:37 PM

I don't suppose anyone is assuming any deception on the part of the Russkies, eh? You think this is all about our missile shield? Could there be other reasons?

08-29-08, 08:01 PM	#24
obvious Child Aiming Anti-Stupid Gun Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: Yesterday 09:21 PM Location: Land of the Anti-Stupid Posts: 8,370 Thanks: 875 Thanked 1,669 Times in 1,214 Posts	Re: Russia tests ICBM designed to overcome missile shield I still can't figure out why a country like Iran or North Korea would bother with a missile when they can send a cargo container with a nuke. Or a donkey over the Mexican border. Missile defense proponents seem like the most ignorant, narrow minded people ever who can't even consider the possibility of an alternative strike method.
	__________________ No, cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.

09-01-08, 05:37 PM	#30
American Constitutionalist Join Date: Mar 2006 Last Seen: Today 07:54 AM Location: VA Posts: 14,730 Thanks: 2,986 Thanked 2,944 Times in 2,041 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: Russia tests ICBM designed to overcome missile shield I don't suppose anyone is assuming any deception on the part of the Russkies, eh? You think this is all about our missile shield? Could there be other reasons?
	__________________ "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode