Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 117

Thread: US downs missile with new interceptor

  1. #61
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    How is that relevant to my point? I don't have an inventory of every countries weapons, but regardless of whether it is currently a threat, it is a long term concern and security from such threats is important even if the threat isn't immediate.
    Probably US, Russia and France. So I guess it would be a good idea to be friendly with Russia and nuke France.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Yea you know education, health care, food programs, infanstructure.. You know the **** that helps people instead of killing people.. You can roll your eyes all ya want..
    Oh yes, God forbid we spend money to better defend ourselves instead a providing healthcare programs and food programs to people who would have healthcare and food if the quit being lazy and actually worked to better themselves instead of just suckling at the government teat.

    That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.

  3. #63
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Oh yes, God forbid we spend money to better defend ourselves
    Yes its not like we spend about 6 times the amount as the second place runner up in military expenditures (China).

    instead a providing healthcare programs and food programs to people who would have healthcare and food if the quit being lazy and actually worked to better themselves instead of just suckling at the government teat.
    Ahh yes privatized for profit healthcare works real great. Its like the rest of the industrialized world are lazy bums right?

    That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.
    It has? Thats why we spend so much "teat" money on war and "national defense"....


    Makes the military industrial complex real happy i know...
    Last edited by TheDemSocialist; 05-12-12 at 06:40 PM.


  4. #64
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Here is why I don't agree.

    1) It has taken 20 years and an unconscionable amount of investment to have one success (after many failures) in a controlled environment.
    2) It will take another fortune to develop one that is fairly reliable.
    3) Other than our noble owners and their underground bunkers, who else will be protected? New York? San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Tulsa or any other population centers?
    4) Who is likely to attack us? The smaller rogue states are much more likely to use another form of delivery than an ICBM. The medium rogues (Pakistan) have many more ICBMs, so how many will we build? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
    5) Will we also need these for our allies? Which ones?
    6) Since Russia has already declared they will enter the race, will we trigger another arms race?
    7) No, I think this is an implausible concept. We will do ourselves more harm by investing in Sci-Fi than in education.

    Of course, it's all just IMHO. Maybe it's a great idea. Does anybody think this is worthwhile? Another 20 years and trillions of dollars?
    Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

    US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  5. #65
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Which countries have ICBM's and nukes?



    Probably US, Russia and France. So I guess it would be a good idea to be friendly with Russia and nuke France.
    Sorry, I'm not getting your point. You'll need to be a little more clear.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  6. #66
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

    US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.
    2.5 billion over nine years on a Government expenditure, (1.25, by your statement), is a very small amount of money, especially for the long term benefit this field would give us. That would average out to about 138 million each year. For comparative purposes:
    Foodstamp Baseline - CBO

    70 billion dollars for food stamps in 2010. 5.83 billion a month. 191 million a day. So, without this program, each year we could ALMOST fund food stamps for a day. No, the spending on this program was not significant.

    (I want to just note that I'm not making a direct claim about the high spending on foodstamps here. My feelings on that aren't relevant to the topic. All I'm hoping to do is demonstrate how little we spent on this relevant to common government expenditures.)
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  7. #67
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,143

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    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.
    well, i do hope you can appreciate why the question was asked

    iran has not initiated an attack on a sovereign nation in two centuries
    which causes me to question why we would believe there is a legitimate basis to incur massive expenditures to develop anti-ICBM weaponry by a nation which is not inclined toward attacking others
    i can only conclude that the government's propaganda media is doling out kool aid to whomever is thirsty enough to drink it, as a means to allocate a substantial portion of our nation's treasure toward military weaponry and away from the social safety net. in short, encouraging the public to not object to its decision to choose guns over butter
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  8. #68
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Of course, I'm pulling my figures out of my ass because I can't find 2 sources that agree with each other and my sense of it is that the United States can't even buy toilet seats for 2.5 billion. So, if we're really going to get the "star wars" defense system for a few billion, sure, WTH, I'm now a brad new enthusiast. But I really doubt that this is the case and by the time it was all operational, I'd be very surprised if it were so nominal a cost. I like the word trillion so I tend to think in those amounts :-). Also, I'm talking about the whole "srtar wars" project since Reagan and you're speaking about one specific project - the SM-3 - which begs the question of what the SM-1 and SM-2 cost us.

    Ah, my vision of education. I would build magnificent schools, full of air, light, computers, labs and even residences for those children whose families are failures and don't mind letting them live in a positive environment. I would hold teachers to the highest standards and pay them at least as well as bureaucrats. I would take retired people whose arts are being lost, like machining, die making etc. and pay them to educate those with aptitude. That's the short form of my grandiose plans.




    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Last time, you suggested SM-3 R&D cost "hundreds of billions" now this time "trillions." In fact, the US and Japan worked together on this project with a budget of 2.5 Billion over 9 years, with Japan footing half the bill. By contrast, the cosmetic manufacturer, L'Oreal, spent 1.8 Billion in a single year...on advertising. Not making their product, advertising it. In one year. We spend more on cosmetics than we do on national defense!

    US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.

  9. #69
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    How many countries have that capability? Us and Russia? I don't think we're trying to destabilize our relations with Russia.
    That's my subtle point.

    The only nation that can possibly pull that kind of attack on us won't attack us. And the alleged threat we're building this weapon against won't use a missile.

    Hence why I call this corporate welfare. It's nothing but a handout to defense contractors.

    Maybe at some point in time it will be able to stop a Russian attack. But that's a long time from now.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #70
    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
    Several quick points:

    1. As far as I know, this system is aimed at addressing a narrower issue (potential small-scale missile attack), not dramatically transforming the global balance of power by making larger nuclear arsenals e.g., Russia's, irrelevant.
    At the moment yes, but the Russians are raising concerns that eventually this system, once it reaches a certain point will be used against them. As for the narrower issues, it's rather idiotic as why the hell would Iran or North Korea waste time and money on a unreliable system that can deliver only one weapon when they can simply smuggle in a few weapons for much cheaper and deliver them via panel van? It really doesn't make any sense when you put your feet in the shoes of who is likely to actually attack us. Russia right now can easily overpower our system. Iran and North Korea (and NSA terrorists) will not use a missile. So the question becomes, why the hell are we wasting billions on a system that will never be used? Furthermore, why aren't we allocating that money to securing our ports and borders to prevent a smuggling operation? I agree with your position, I just took it a few steps further as to why missile defense is a waste of money.

    2. The system is aimed at reducing the risk of a small-scale attack, not eliminating all risk.
    Nothing short of turning our enemies to glass can eliminate all risk. But missile defense defends against a non-existent threat. Well, aside from losing votes in an election year. But that's another story.

    3. If the system is effective, it will be more difficult--not impossible--for a rogue state to attack the U.S. or U.S. allies. The U.S. has the geographic depth to absorb the kind of attacks you describe. Although areas hit by such attacks would suffer catastrophic damage/casualties, national survival would not be threatened.
    It doesn't matter if the system is effective or not when the type of attack it is designed to stop never comes. Terrorists and enemy states are confined by the same budgetary pressures we face. It makes no sense at all to spend huge sums of money on a unreliable delivery system to deliver one weapon that will be returned a thousand fold. It makes far more sense for our enemies who are confined by small budgets to build numerous weapons, smuggle them into the US and delivery them via suicide bombers driving panel vans and moving trucks. No amount of missile defense can stop that. Their goal is to maximize the number of Americans they can kill. A single miniaturized weapon on top a unreliable missile hitting one city hardly packs the punch of delivery six large weapons via truck.

    4. The logistics involved with the kinds of attacks you describe are not seamless. Arguably, missile attacks might be easier to pull off, as one doesn't have to worry about smuggling and assembly, all of which create opportunities for detection. Indeed, the complex logistics involved with such attacks have likely contributed to the lack of such attacks even with the widely-documented security flaws you described.
    This I have to disagree with. The necessary technical expertise, equipment and materials to build an ICBM that is reliable, stable and accurate is in the billions of dollars. The cost to miniaturize a nuclear device to actually fit on a crude reliable, stable and accurate ICBM is in the hundreds of millions. Furthermore, it is incredibly easy for the enemy to watch what you're doing and attack you before the launch happens simply by satellite surveillance. I'm not saying that panel van is easy. I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot easier than building a ICBM, shrinking your nuke down to size and actually pulling off a launch. On top of that, it is instantly traceable as to where the nuke came from. That goes contrary to everything our enemies leaderships have shown. Launching a traceable missile leads to their demise. Smuggling weapons in is far harder to track down and takes considerably more time and gives them denial capacity.

    I really don't get how we haven't been attacked yet with a nuclear device. Our ports are unsecured. Our borders unsecured. There's plenty of radioactive material out there poorly or not even guarded. If terrorists or states can't even pull the easy way off, why would they go the hard way?

    In short, far from seeking to transform the global balance of power, the system is intended to provide some additional insurance against a small-scale missile attack (intentional or accidental). Investing some resources in defensive capabilities, rather than relying strictly on offensive ones, gives the nation greater flexibility and enhances its security. Nothing the nation does can eliminate all risk.
    At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars? We're better off building a souped up version of the Israeli Iron Dome system then the corporate welfare monstrosity we have now.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •