Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: US downs missile with new interceptor

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    what causes you to believe that iran is a missile threat

    justabubba... I am not the right person to be asked this question. I am only posting a breaking news.

    The USA Department of Defence is the entity to ask.

  2. #32
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Honestly it is cool that we have this capability, now that we can automate yet another thing in the government, let us roll back cost like they did within the IRS with automation.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  3. #33
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    Video released by the Department of Defence shows what it claims to be the first successful test of the Navy's newest anti-missile interceptor,designed to protect allies from attacks by countries like North Korea and Iran
    Waste of tax dollars.

    A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

    Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #34
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    "Hasn't been able to work?" Seems to me the SM-3 has been successful since 2002 (working for the last 9 years).

    RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    How many of these tests were against multiple launches with MRVs equipped with decoys?

    Missile defense is a corporate handout. Short of constantly nuking the atmosphere, we cannot stop a large nuclear salvo that is properly equipped with decoys. Hell, all they have to do actually detonate a missile before the rest of them causing massive interference and jamming our systems. It's why we stopped using nuclear interceptors. It blinds us entirely to anything coming in. It doesn't matter if one or two missiles undergoing MRV separation who aren't armed with decoys. No test we've conducted comes anywhere close to what we'd face against an actual massive salvo.

    And the idea that Iran or North Korea would use a missile is insane. Why waste billions on a single missile when you can build dozens of nukes, smuggle them into the US, rent a few panel vans and then use them to kill millions? And that also buys you time as it's far harder to trace then an incoming ICMB.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #35
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Complacency is a dangerous strategy. There's no assurance that today's advantages won't be wiped out by some breakthrough. While a risk-free goal is not realistic, investments in defensive and offensive capabilities can mitigate risk and they can deter would-be enemies. A comprehensive approach that effectively deters conflict and its associated human and financial costs is a good national security investment.
    While that is indeed true, it makes no sense to spend money on a system designed to stop an attack that will either never come or will come in such force that it is completely unstoppable. I STILL don't get how we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggled device as our ports and borders were (and in some cases still are) horribly equipped to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material into the country. It is far easier, practical and more likely to succeed for a nation to smuggle weapons into the country and deliver them by van then it is on top of a questionable missile.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Waste of tax dollars.

    A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

    Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.

    Obviously that's your opinion, not the opinion of the USA Department of Defence.

    And so ... I will take your opinion with a grain of salt, of course, if you don't mind.

  7. #37
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    Obviously that's your opinion, not the opinion of the USA Department of Defence.

    And so ... I will take your opinion with a grain of salt, of course, if you don't mind.
    Do you have anything of substance to say?

    Why exactly would a country choose to spend more money on a likely to fail and likely to get themselves immediate nuked method of delivery when it can deliver dozens more weapons, reliably and far more discreetly for less outflow?

    And my opinion is hardly my own.

    Do the names Sagan and Graham mean anything to you in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    ^^^

    Go ask the USA Department of Defence.

    And by the way, whatever they answer you ( if you ever ask them) I agree with.

    That is all I have to say to you.

  9. #39
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    ^^^

    Go ask the USA Department of Defence.

    And by the way, whatever they answer you ( if you ever ask them) I agree with.

    That is all I have to say to you.
    So no, those don't ring any bells and no, you aren't capable (or willing) of doing an economic analysis comparing cost to benefits. Thanks for making that clear to me. I will cease requesting answers to complex issues from you.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So no, those don't ring any bells and no, you aren't capable (or willing) of doing an economic analysis comparing cost to benefits. Thanks for making that clear to me. I will cease requesting answers to complex issues from you.

    You are right I don't have the desire or time to do an economic analysis with you.

    May be somebody else does. Good luck anyway.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •