Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117

Thread: US downs missile with new interceptor

  1. #71
    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 Porchev View Post
    New developments are always necessary; otherwise you may end up with something similar to a French WWII Maginot Line defense that is ineffective and outdated.
    You do realize that the Maginot line utterly annihilated the German units that attacked it no? What made the Maginot line unsuccessful was politics. The French thought (probably rightfully) that it would be bad politics to build it all the way to the ocean. Kind of suggests you're going to sellout your ally to the Germans. The Germans took advantage of what was politics over stragetic concerns and simply bypassed it after getting the snot shot out of them from earlier frontal attacks.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #72
    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 DVSentinel View Post
    It still amazes me sometimes how some people think. Yeah, I know, after all this time, it shoud not be surprising.

    There are those that argue that the money is better spent elsewhere. However, no nation can survive for long without the ability to defend itself. America would in no way be worse off finacially or functionally if all of welfare and most, if not all, social programs are removed, it would be in very dire straits if all of Defence is removed.
    Explain to me the intelligence of building a defense system that will never be used.

    Then there are the "it doesn't really work, so we shouldn't pursue it" crowd. There has never been nor will there ever be anything that works at 100% the first time it is tried. But, we know, that no matter what field you want to apply it to, that you cannot reach your goal without first starting down a path leading to it. Karl Benz was not sucessful the first time he tried to make an automobile. Robert Goddard was not sucessful the firsttime he tried to make a rocket. The Wright Bro. were not sucessful the firsttime they tried to fly an airplane. Etc... Where would the world be if these and others had simply said "it doesn't work" after earlier attempts and chose not to continue?
    Missile defense only works against nations who won't use missiles. It's like banning gangsters from owning RPGs when they specialize in knife fights. Yeah sure it will stop a few missiles here or there but when our enemy will not use a missile, why are we spending billions on it?

    And there are the "we don't really need that crowd". It cost far more if we wait until we need it to even start to develope it. America, to date, has never entered a war that it was prepared to fight at the beginning of hostilities. Due to increased power, range and effectiveness of modern weapons, when the next big one starts, we very well may not have the time to ramp up to meet the challenge.
    Then how about we build a system that actually is geared towards non-nuclear short range missiles? Something like the Israeli Iron Dome. I have yet to see any of you explain why Iran or North Korea would actually use an ICBM.

    Any costs that increases our capabilites to be more accurate, better equiped, reduces the amount of time necessary to sucessfully win a war and increases the chances of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines will come home alive is beyond any reasonable doubt worth it. Especially when compared to something like Welfare. Every Senator and Congressman should vote on military projects as if it is their children's lives at stake.
    So guns over butter always, even when the defense tool is for an attack that won't come?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #73
    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 Demon of Light View Post
    Yeah, all they need to do is spend several weeks sneaking a nuclear weapon the size of a person onto hostile foreign soil without being detected. Way easier and far more effective than just firing a missile from thousands of miles away that will reach its target in less than twenty minutes.
    Yes. You do it in parts. Just like the drug dealers. Considering how we still lack radioactive detectors in sufficient quantities and strength, it's not hard. Furthermore, as Graham pointed out in his book on nuclear proliferation, you can make a simple nuclear device sans fissile material from parts at radioshack. The US senate commissioned a study where US scientists actually MADE simple nuclear devices sans fissile material and brought them into the senate to point out why the Nunn-Lugar CTR was vital. So all they really need to smuggle in is the fissile material and possible some special explosives. They can find the rest of the parts here.

    And do you have any idea just how hard it is to make a reliable, multi stage ICBM that is reliable and accurate? Furthermore, do you have any idea how hard it is to conceal such a weapon from satellites before a launch? Furthermore, do you have any idea just how hard it is to miniaturize a nuke so it can fit on a ICBM? I'm thinking no to all of those. The US had to literally hire former Nazis to make rockets for us because we couldn't do it. And we poured billions into the program. Japan took decades to get the know how to build reliable satellite launch rockets. The crazy notion that a poor ass state can actually make a reliable, accurate multi-stage rocket that can deliver a miniaturized nuclear weapon without us knowing well in advance of a launch is pretty bat****.

    If you don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds through the upper atmosphere the "panel van" might be a useful technique. There are about a dozen other good reasons why what you are suggesting is completely absurd for countries with the capability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile.
    Want to try to name some of them?

    It appears you think it's super easy for a cash strapped nation to build a multi-stage reliable and accurate weapon at the same time miniaturizing a nuclear device and hiding the whole thing from satellites.

    Sounds like you're pushing the absurd argument here.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #74
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You do realize that the Maginot line utterly annihilated the German units that attacked it no? What made the Maginot line unsuccessful was politics. The French thought (probably rightfully) that it would be bad politics to build it all the way to the ocean. Kind of suggests you're going to sellout your ally to the Germans. The Germans took advantage of what was politics over stragetic concerns and simply bypassed it after getting the snot shot out of them from earlier frontal attacks.
    The line was not continued because it was thought the Ardennes forest was too thick to penetrate. Also the line did not take into account aircraft that can fly right over it. Either way, it was a failure because of non-dynamic military planning. They built it and thought they were done, but things changed with time and they didn't adapt and upgrade, so they were beaten easily.

  5. #75
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Yes. You do it in parts. Just like the drug dealers. Considering how we still lack radioactive detectors in sufficient quantities and strength, it's not hard. Furthermore, as Graham pointed out in his book on nuclear proliferation, you can make a simple nuclear device sans fissile material from parts at radioshack. The US senate commissioned a study where US scientists actually MADE simple nuclear devices sans fissile material and brought them into the senate to point out why the Nunn-Lugar CTR was vital. So all they really need to smuggle in is the fissile material and possible some special explosives. They can find the rest of the parts here.

    And do you have any idea just how hard it is to make a reliable, multi stage ICBM that is reliable and accurate? Furthermore, do you have any idea how hard it is to conceal such a weapon from satellites before a launch? Furthermore, do you have any idea just how hard it is to miniaturize a nuke so it can fit on a ICBM? I'm thinking no to all of those. The US had to literally hire former Nazis to make rockets for us because we couldn't do it. And we poured billions into the program. Japan took decades to get the know how to build reliable satellite launch rockets. The crazy notion that a poor ass state can actually make a reliable, accurate multi-stage rocket that can deliver a miniaturized nuclear weapon without us knowing well in advance of a launch is pretty bat****.
    I think you just like reading Tom Clancy novels and then expect the world to work the same way. The whole "Nazi" thing pretty much demonstrates the simplistic nature of your views on this subject. Needing to get some better expertise in order to get ahead of the Soviets 60 years ago has no bearing on what it is like today.

    Want to try to name some of them?

    It appears you think it's super easy for a cash strapped nation to build a multi-stage reliable and accurate weapon at the same time miniaturizing a nuclear device and hiding the whole thing from satellites.

    Sounds like you're pushing the absurd argument here.
    Sorry, but anyone who seriously talks about panel vans being the way it is going to be done has gone beyond absurd. That is a scare tactic, not an actual threat. No, I do not think it is "super easy", but it is a hell of a lot more likely to be successful.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    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 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.
    The main disagreement I have with this posting is that it gives the impression that we Texans are all a bunch of raving lunatics! Please understand that this is a minority view among sane Texans. We, the sane Texans, understand that most people who are utilizing the programs afforded by government agencies do so out of need, not out of laziness.

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Why is North Korea investing so many resources in development of the Taepodong II ICBM? There must be a reason.

    Why is Iran devoting so many resources to the development of the Shabazz III ballistic missile? There must be a reason.

    Why has Iran obtained the right to establish a military base on Venezuelan soil? There must be a reason.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Russia just officially **** a brick.

    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.
    10 May 2012



    Video: US downs missile with new interceptor - Telegraph

  9. #79
    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 dontworrybehappy View Post
    Russia just officially **** a brick.
    I really dont think Russia gives a ****


  10. #80
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,106

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Wonder if there will ever come a day when we could skip all the formalities and just launch schools or bridges at them instead.

    Seeing a large modern hospital being hurled across the ocean would probably produce a neat shock and awe effect.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •