Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123

Thread: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

  1. #91
    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: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    LINK: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept
    Bravo!!! Score another one for the good guys!!!

    Considering the current rush to cut spending, this is one area of defense spending that should remain untouched or maybe even get a slight budget increase.
    Why again are we applauding a test where we had all of the information before hand and even programmed into the computer?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #92
    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: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Sure, you just need some people proficient enough to safely disassemble and reassemble a nuclear warhead.
    Which there are plenty from various programs steming from the USSR, South Africa's clandestine nuclear program (did you know about that one? I bet not), Pakistan's program and a whole host of others. This is so much of a threat that the US actually has welfare science programs to keep these people from disappearing into the the black market.

    Hell, those types of people practically fall from the sky in the backwater slums of Central Asia.
    Methinks you should educate yourself before making a statement like that.

    It isn't that amazing at all. For one, a person actually has to get the nuke by passing through all the military security surrounding any nuclear facility and leaving unnoticed with something at least the size of a washing machine and heavy as two average-sized men
    Or just get the material from a number of poorly guarded Russian facilities. Some are guarded by a lone rusty padlock. Ukraine reportedly has a number of these sites with fairly enriched uranium just hiding under tarps. Nunn and Lugar have been trying for years to get the US to fund security cleanups.

    Whoops.

    Methinks you should educate yourself before making a statement like that.

    I doubt jumping the gate is an option.
    No, but a $10 lock cutter will do the trick.

    Then you have to get it out of the host country before anyone realizes what has happened and can prevent you from leaving.
    Not a problem.

    You also need someone capable of rigging the nuke to detonate under such conditions.
    Like a 5th grader who can set up a basic timer? Or even better just rig an iPhone with a GPS.

    Basically, what you are talking about is plausible for a state actor that possesses nukes since it would only have to worry about getting it to the target from the nearest port.
    Not at all. Not at all.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    You must take much of what he says with a grain of salt. He doesn't have a clue when it comes to how big a nuclear warhead is and how difficult it would be to smuggle a nuke just a fraction of its size into the US because, as you pointed out, he is thinking more along the lines of a Tom Clancy novel than real life logistics.
    A nuclear warhead in the 100kT range is less than 22 inches in diameter, for that is the diameter of the TLAM-N launched from Los Angeles class submarines.

    The effective payload compartment of those missiles is on the rough order of four feet long, or less.

    Hence, a notable nuclear device will be bigger than a bread box, unless you're keeping French baguettes.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Really? So the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on missile defense doesn't exist?
    Sure it exists. The money isn't wasted. It's still out there, circulating, buying beer and broads.

    We even still have the research and the limited hardware.

    Furthermore, have you heard of the weapon system called the Patriot Missile Battery and it's various upgrades?
    Yes. PATRIOT is a theatre defense system not intended for defense against hypersonic stealthed war heads detectable only upon re-entry.

    I guess being a hack in one view means you reject educating yourself in all views.
    Yes, you proved that adequately.

    And they will be retaliated with massive overkill. MAD works on basically every state.
    And being a hack means you never had to ask what MAD entailed.

    Let's examine theory.

    1) Mutual Assured Destruction. Assumes, firstly, that the United States will be willing to respond to the attack. The United States will not be allowed to turn all of Iran into a glass sinkhole for vengeance. Russia won't like it, China won't like it, Pakistan won't like it, India won't like it. Since you're self-confessed hack, the Mayor will see fit to inform you that all of those nations have significant nuclear capabilities, and over half the world's population to back up their desires.

    2) MAD assumes the attacker can be identified. This is baseless.

    3) MAD assumes the other nuclear nations are led by sane people. Iran does not fall into this category, nor does North Korea, nor does Venezuela. Also, the future leadership of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc, is uncertain but good bets put al qaeda and Hamas in positions of significant influence.

    4) Scenario: Assume Iran smuggles an ICBM to Hamas in Gaza, which launches at New York. With plausible deniability, the chance that the United States will not launch against Tehran are hight. The chance that the United States will launch against Gaza is zero. Hence, no assurance of mutual destruction.

    5) Scenario: Your daughter is lying on the floor of the makeshift hospital, with every other member of her elementary school, ****ting blood and leaving blood shards of skin behind when she moves because someone's irresponsible reliance on MAD allowed the enemy the assurance that his launch would reach it's target. You're happy that the United Staes will lauch one hundred nuclear weapons at the attackign nation within the hour, so you can tell your daughter that the people who killed her will join her in heaven when she dies that afternoon.

    THAT is the reality of MAD. It's effin' pathetic that the people who insisted eveyrone read On The Beach in high school (bet you never read "Triumph" by Philip Wylie) as a lecture on the evils of nuclear war are willing to perpetuate the nightmare of the sixties, seventies, and eighties simply because their viagra doesn't work when there's nothing there for it to work on.

    MAD is fit for children. MAD will kill children. It barely worked with only two players. It cannot work with proliferated network of arms now in existence.

    Even Iran.
    Note to hack: Iran hasn't completed it's nuclear weapons development program yet. However, it's missile launch system tests are impressive. They'll be able to launch their bombs when they finish building them.

    Who's managed to keep a cold war with Saudi Arabia from going hot despite having sufficient chemical weapons to wipe out most of the population.
    You mean, despite their reluctance to melt Mecca? Or despite the fact that Iran and SA don't share a common border, but share a common export, making it difficult for them to wage any kind of a war at all.

    To invest the necessary resources to have a viable, effective and reliable ICBM is at minimum a billion dollars.
    Yes, we are discussing Iran. Hmmm....what does Iran export? Oh, yeah, hundreds of millionsn of barrels of oil, for sale at a hundred bucks each. Believe it or not, your computer is also a calculator, so you have no excuse for not doing the math.

    Besides which, were you attempting to gain a role in the reprise of Austin Powers?

    [quote]It makes far more sense to spend half that and smuggle a dozen weapons and use them by panel van and bypass all of the expensive outlays. Not to mention you can hide most of your weapons program that way as well.[quote]

    Well, you need to learn how to put yourself in the shoes of your typical muslim national leader cum terrorist. Their urge to open their raincoats and scare the little girls with their dangling participle is overwhelming and the phallic attraction of missiles is pathological for people like that.

    The problem with neocons like you
    yes, you feel the urge to devolve to petty insult because the long eleven letter word (starts with an "L", see it) is too hard to say for hacks that lack the imagination to construct valid arguments.

    is that you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes to see how they would think.
    Sorry, the Mayor beat you to it. That he read your post first doesn't mean anything when playing by Calvinball rules.

    It's a reason why Iraq went so poorly for years. Why bother with spending a billion for a single ICBM when you can get a dozen smuggled in for less than half without any risk of missile defense?
    You mean why get a dozen imaginary warheads smuggled in without any risk of the imaginary missile defense.

    Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Yet.

    The United States doesn't have missile defense. Yet.

    Other than those inconvenient truths, your point was almost valid. But only almost.

    Considering how badly we inspect for radioactive material, it's one reason I think God exists. In 10 years we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggle weapon. Divine intervention.
    The reality is that the TSA is really good at feeling up six year old girls, and no one's detected a nuclear weapon yet because the jihadists don't have them.

    Yet.

    Probably more then you. Have you ever wondered about the rumors of orbital insertions of nuclear weapons? That's better then SSBN second strike.
    It's irrelevant how the vengeance weapons are delivered, once we've already suffered casualties here.

    Did you really say that?
    No. The Mayor has the unusual ability to type without moving his lips, though his must admit that typing about typing without moving his lips gives his lips an urge to dance.

    [quote]You want to shuffle nuclear weapons on RAIL? Rail that's open to spying? Rail that has accidents? Rail that can be sabotaged?[/quote

    Amazingly, how is a nation to target a choo-choo train on the rails? Will the spy have on the minute awareness of when his masters will launch? Will he be transmitting continuously updated information regarding the location of the MX missile carriage? How will the spy know which carriages carry active missiles and how many carry Quaker guns? Perhaps the entire MX missile system can be a diversion to consume enemy resources. And, amazingly, it's not easy to sabotage a rail system patrolled and monitored by the military, and naturally if threats of sabotage are of concern, it's a simple matter to run train convoys to that dummy trains will pass over the suspected areas without damage to the weapons.

    MX was a valid concept. The Soviets hated it, which is why the American left hated it.

    That's almost as bad of a system as the Soviet method of transporting their nukes.
    What did they use, donkeys?

    We could have hit every single Soviet mobile launch pad after figuring out their design. SSBNs are far more of a preferable survivable alternative.
    Certainly boomers will always form an essential core reserve offensive capacity.

    The MX or a similar system could form a cost effective alternative. An Ohio-class submarine cost a quarter billion dollars.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    I'm afraid from what I've read that Demon may have the upper hand in this one, oC.

  6. #96
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    yes yes. Let's tell the world that our Army has only 100 bullets for each soldier this year, and no matter what happens we're not going to buy any more, an see what happens.


    While the military budget can be cut, starting with the immediate cessation of all US activities in Libya, followed by withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, that makes no noticeable dent in our national fiscal crisis.

    Taking part of the savings to buy rope to hang the Amnesty Politicians, and using much of the rest to seal our southern border and to identify and prosecute the employers of the invading army of Mexicans, will do much to improve the economic picture inside the US.

    But, in addition, it's imperative that the United States rush through work on improved theater missile defences and national defenses. There's one reason, and one reason only, that China developed a hypersonic cruise missile. That reason is our carrier task forces. The only feasible defense against those weapons are space-based detection and destruction systems, coupled with second and third generation ABL systems. ABL is an unqualified success and the goverment needs to expand from the successful prototype to more practical variations that fit in smaller, carrier based aircraft, to start with.
    I have always believed Aircraft Carriers to be indefensible. Pop a nuke near one, don't have to hit it. The wave will do the rest. They are a city under motion and contain awesome firepower, but realilty is reality.

  7. #97
    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: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Which there are plenty from various programs steming from the USSR, South Africa's clandestine nuclear program (did you know about that one? I bet not), Pakistan's program and a whole host of others. This is so much of a threat that the US actually has welfare science programs to keep these people from disappearing into the the black market.
    Of course I know about South Africa's nuclear program. Did you ever hear of A.Q. Khan selling his know-how or tech to non-state actors? No, because the nuclear black market gets big money from aspiring nuclear states, not paupers who can only afford to blow themselves up.

    Or just get the material from a number of poorly guarded Russian facilities. Some are guarded by a lone rusty padlock. Ukraine reportedly has a number of these sites with fairly enriched uranium just hiding under tarps. Nunn and Lugar have been trying for years to get the US to fund security cleanups.

    Whoops.

    Methinks you should educate yourself before making a statement like that.
    Were you only talking about uranium? So now some rag-tag groups of guerrillas are going to actually build a nuclear weapon. Yeah, do you realize that they would need more than one nuclear scientist on the payroll to accomplish that? Better be able to pay them far more than they make working for national governments.

    Not a problem.
    Yeah, because when countries realize someone stole one of their nukes the last thing they are interested in doing is preventing it from leaving the country. I mean, they might have a convenience store robbery to investigate. Certainly don't want to divert resources from something important like that.

    Like a 5th grader who can set up a basic timer? Or even better just rig an iPhone with a GPS.
    Sure, just duct tape a block of C4 onto that bitch and hook it up to your smart phone. That'll get the job done.

    Not at all. Not at all.
    Are you saying it is plausible for a non-state actor or are you saying that they would have to worry about more than getting it to the target?
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #98
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Why again are we applauding a test where we had all of the information before hand and even programmed into the computer?
    Can you please substantiate this assumption? If you can prove that these drills are performed in the manner you just described, I will join you in protesting future tests and expenditures on the program. If not, you need to admit that you are full of it.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  9. #99
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    A nuclear warhead in the 100kT range is less than 22 inches in diameter, for that is the diameter of the TLAM-N launched from Los Angeles class submarines.

    The effective payload compartment of those missiles is on the rough order of four feet long, or less.

    Hence, a notable nuclear device will be bigger than a bread box, unless you're keeping French baguettes.
    Your facts really aren’t relevant unless you are making the assumption that the USA is going to sell a compact nuke to someone who will use it on us. Even Russia falls behind the US when it comes to building compact nukes.

    Besides, you are now talking about weapons grade plutonium that has a unique signature that would be traced back to one of the few nations in the world capable of producing such devices. In other words, we aren’t going to have a small, powerful suitcase nuke go off without knowing exactly where it came from and even then, the damage would be a fraction of the devices you list because it would be a ground burst explosion rather than an air burst explosion.

    The only thing terrorist are going to throw at us in the way of suitcase types of bombs will really be dirty bombs that will cause more panic than actual damage. So the claim that a suitcase bomb or panel van bomb is cheaper and just as effective as an ICBM is total hogwash any way you slice it.

    The argument is a strawman argument anyway. Just because someone can list other possible threats doesn’t remove the obvious threat of an incoming missile.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  10. #100
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I have always believed Aircraft Carriers to be indefensible. Pop a nuke near one, don't have to hit it. The wave will do the rest. They are a city under motion and contain awesome firepower, but realilty is reality.
    Sounds like you are making the case for missile defense now. This is just one more reason to keep moving forward with the MD program.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •