Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

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

  1. #101
    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
    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.
    Not China. Clinton handed China free access to our W88 technology for campaign cash.

    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.
    Your statement was that nuclear weapons are large.

    Your statement was refuted.

    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.
    Right, and the only thing terrorists can do to us is the occasional mail bomb or pizza-shop killing. Then Oklahoma City and 9-11 happened...

    Why do you insist on placing imaginary limits on people you know nothing about?

    [/quote]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.[/QUOTE]

    You are aware that Mayor Snorkum is a proponent of the strongest possible missile defenses and continued research in that field, right?

  2. #102
    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
    Not China. Clinton handed China free access to our W88 technology for campaign cash.
    China canít build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Your statement was that nuclear weapons are large.

    Your statement was refuted.
    My statement was in the context of what a terrorist group could theoretically get their hands on. Iím fully aware of the US and USSR producing micro nukes but this isnít an episode of ď24Ē and terrorists arenít going to get their hands on any of those, if they even still exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Right, and the only thing terrorists can do to us is the occasional mail bomb or pizza-shop killing. Then Oklahoma City and 9-11 happened...
    Red Herring Alert. Stop wasting my time with such trivial drool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Why do you insist on placing imaginary limits on people you know nothing about?
    Another Red Herring.

    I place reasonable limits on anyone who doesnít have the technical capacity to carry out a specific threat. If I told you I was going to blow up the moon would you call 911 or would you laugh it off? Thus far all you have done is point to the fact that the US has the ability to build very small nukes. Feel free to explain why I should be worried about one going off in a major US city.

    "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.

  3. #103
    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

    Getting back to the topic of this post, the US MDA has proven that it can shoot down long to medium range missiles. Thus far the best argument against it has been Russia’s and China’s objection to it.

    It will (and probably already is) protect our carrier groups and will eventually provide more protection to the US population. This is a defensive weapon system so I can’t see why anyone would oppose it unless they want Americans to be more vulnerable.

    If I’m not representing the topic in a manner consistent with your views, let me know. I really don’t care what you socialists and communists have to say on the subject so go piss up another rope. I want to hear from real Americans.

    "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.

  4. #104
    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 Mayor Snorkum View Post
    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.
    So you admit your earlier statement about there being no missile defense in the US is wrong then?

    Short memory partisan hacks have. I guess you gotta have a memory issue to be a hack eh?

    Yes. PATRIOT is a theatre defense system not intended for defense against hypersonic stealthed war heads detectable only upon re-entry.
    And which poor country with a history of instability is going to have that?

    Furthermore, there is no such thing as a stealth MRV. A basic infrared camera will pick up any MRV coming in. It appears you do not understand what stealth is. What patriots suck at is determining which target is real and which is a decoy. Even the Israeli Arrow isn't good at that.

    Nice fallacy of raising the bar. More dishonesty from you. Seems you like many hacks cannot argue honestly.

    yes, you proved that adequately.
    See above. I'm not the one thinking that a warhead during reentry can hide from infrared despite producing large amounts of friction. What a hoot. Clearly, educating yourself is not something you care about. Even when it's basic science.

    And being a hack means you never had to ask what MAD entailed.
    on the contrary, I've forgotten more about it then you know...which honestly isn't much.

    Let's examine theory.

    1) Mutual ....like it.
    And that will stop us how? Furthermore, you think that Russia, China, Pakistan and India will actually condone a first nuclear strike and press the victim nation not to launch a secondary strike? Second, you think that Iran will launch a nuke knowing full well that we will turn them into glass? That may be stupidest thing I've read on this forum. Russia, China, Pakistan and India didn't like us invading Iraq. Did that stop us? We occupied an entire country over what actually WAS a lie (See Curveball's recent confession). The idea that the US won't glass a country that nuked them first is absolutely ignorant of history.

    Since....desires.
    And Russia, Pakistan, China and India will nuke the US over Iran attacking the US FIRST? Really? That may be worth a basement mockery.

    That P, C, R and I will actually nuke a victim nation? THAT DEFINITELY IS BASEMENT MATERIAL. Thanks!

    2) MAD assumes the attacker can be identified. This is baseless.
    Hence why a state wouldn't use a missile. Hence my original point. Imagine that. A missile is instantly identifiable. That invites retaliation. Hence why I've long argued a nuke will come by panel van. Not a missile. And MAD only works against state, hence why the assumption is 100% correct at least in terms of missile exchange.

    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.
    Actually they do fall quite nicely into that category. You are too much of a hack to bother to educate yourself on those countries. While I think that the leaders of all three are below human scum, they are sane. Iran in particular has yet to show a single incident where the leaders risked their hold on power, much less their lives. And they have had sufficient chemical weapons to wipe out Israel since the 60s. Except that Israel could wipe them out as well. I'd ask you to show a single incident where the Mullahs acted in a fashion that risked their hold over Iran but I won't because you, like everyone else I asked, will just run away. Iran, North Korea and Venezuela are not lead by crazy people. They are lead by people who want to stay in power and who want to survive. That alone renders them sane.

    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.
    Perhaps. Without Assad, the Islamic militants really don't have much support. Syria is a very interesting country if you bother to take the time to learn about its intricacies. As for the rest, too early to say.

    4) Scenario: Assume Iran smuggles an ICBM to Hamas in Gaza, which launches at New York.
    Thanks for proving you basically have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Iran possess nothing of such range, much less a warhead small enough to fit on such a missile. Second, Iran has never given either Hizbollah or Hamas anything relatively advanced. You are basically saying that Iran will give Hamas a weapon that doesn't exist that would be the most advanced weapon they have, and let it out of their control to an organization that doesn't always follow Tehran.

    I'd call you crazy....but you get the idea.

    With plausible.....destruction.
    Not really. Thanks again for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. While you clearly do not know, every nuclear device has traces of where it was made, and from where the ore was mined. After an explosion residue of such impurities would basically allow the US to remove potential sources of where the material came from. Not to mention we'd have images of the missile. That alone would incriminate Iran.

    A far more likely scenario (stop talking about thinks you demonstrate a glaring ignorance of) is that terrorists raid a facility in one of the FSU states, build a crude bomb with the help of a variety of merc scientists, smuggle parts into the US, build the weapon and transport it by van to a US city. That would incriminate Russia, but with Russia's massive insecurity regarding material and the fact that Russia has nothing to gain from an attack would rule them out. After that, it's hard to figure out who did it.

    THAT is the reality of MAD.
    You should actually read about MAD before talking about it. You basically demonstrated massive ignorance.

    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.
    I agree. MAD doesn't work on stateless actors. But stateless actors don't have ICBMs. Or nukes that will fit on an ICBM. But you totally screwed up what MAD talks about applying it to something that it never discusses.

    If you haven't noticed I actually agree with your stance that MAD doesn't work in today's world where the real threats come from (hence why I stated from the beginning a nuke won't come via missile). State use of nukes is pretty much nil. It's those stateless actors that we must worry about.

    Note to hack: Iran hasn't completed it's nuclear weapons development program yet.
    Note to real hack: Iran isn't even close. Getting a nuke isn't hard. Any chemistry major knows the process. The problem is getting a nuke to a small size, with reliable missile technology of sufficient range, with enough missiles to take out a second strike. Not even the USSR had that capacity.

    However, it's missile launch system tests are impressive. They'll be able to launch their bombs when they finish building them.
    Really? So much so that they constantly fake their results?

    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.
    You really outta look at a map of the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia has stated in leaked wires that it wants the US to attack Iran. And the reliance on oil doesn't mean squat. In fact a rise in oil prices from a conflict would help Iran. And one does not need to wage total war. I doubt you know the difference between that and limited.

    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.
    Was that your argument? Iran is also facing massive pressures to maintain subsidies on a variety of domestic produces not to mention buying refined petroleum products at market prices.

    And Iran does not get $100 per barrel. That's not the wholesale price. Seriously, do you know anything? Oil transfers go through a variety of middlemen. Furthermore, Iran does not generate the same type of oil as Saudi Arabia. That will further reduce the wholesale price Iran gets. Iran currently faces a foreign debt of $44 billion.

    So no, they don't have that kind of money to freely spend. Seriously, have you even bothered to use Google?

    Well, you need to learn how to put yourself in the shoes of your typical muslim national leader cum terrorist.
    You mean like always sending someone else to die for you and never risking your power ever? Oh wait. You have no support in history. At all.

    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.
    I'm not the one who argued Russia will nuke the US over Iran. Valid you say? I'm not the one who argued that Iran gets wholesale price for Brent Crude. I'm not the one who argued that warheads reentering the atmosphere generate no friction.

    Sorry, the Mayor beat you to it. That he read your post first doesn't mean anything when playing by Calvinball rules.
    Oh I can put myself in stupid shoes. I then remove myself quickly.

    You mean why get a dozen imaginary warheads smuggled in without any risk of the imaginary missile defense.
    Technically they aren't warheads. They are merely nuclear devices. And a nuke via panel van fears no missile defense.

    The United States doesn't have missile defense. Yet.
    Not according to your own post.

    Other than those inconvenient truths, your point was almost valid. But only almost.
    You can't even remember what you argued. Really.

    it's irrelevant how the vengeance weapons are delivered, once we've already suffered casualties here.
    Actually it is. Without a second strike invulnerable to a first strike, nukes become usable.

    Amazingly, how is a nation to target a choo-choo train on the rails?
    The same way it targets everything else.

    Will the spy have on the minute awareness of when his masters will launch?
    No, he'll just relay the locations of the hidden nukes on a regular basis the same way the US relays the location of Russia and Chinese subs. Not hard really. Sure the spy is toast, but one must sacrifice.

    How will the spy know which carriages carry active missiles and how many carry Quaker guns?
    He won't. But considering the USSR had more nukes the necessary to destroy the entire planet several times over, it really doesn't matter the number of Quaker guns.

    Perhaps the entire MX missile system can be a diversion to consume enemy resources.
    So the same thing as Reagan's Star Wars?

    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.
    Actually it is easy. If you have separate systems of rail for the MX, then you sabotage those. Or tag them for a nuke. That's as bad as the large turns the Russians needed for their mobile launchers. And it's impossible to patrol the rest of the civilian rail which is the only real way to hide the back up nukes. And once you run dummy trains, the real ones can't move as the tracks are damaged. Sitting ducks.

    There's plenty of good reason rail for nukes was a bad idea.

    MX was a valid concept.
    For the stupid.

    The Soviets hated it
    Actually you like it.

    What did they use, donkeys?
    Go educate yourself. It has to do with the size of the mobile launch pads and the necessary turn radius needed.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #105
    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
    China can’t build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.
    There's a huge amount of detail that Mayor has no understanding about.

    My statement was in the context of what a terrorist group could theoretically get their hands on. I’m fully aware of the US and USSR producing micro nukes but this isn’t an episode of “24” and terrorists aren’t going to get their hands on any of those, if they even still exist.
    They are more likely to get a dirty bomb more than anything else. Or steal a regular size russian nuke. Backpack nukes are a myth.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #106
    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 SE102 View Post
    I'm afraid from what I've read that Demon may have the upper hand in this one, oC.
    Not a chance. I have yet to lose a discussion about missile defense or nuclear weapons. Demon, while far more knowledgeable then Mayor (seriously) doesn't scare me.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #107
    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
    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.
    I never seriously argued that NSA will actually refine their own material into a sufficiently enriched material (that alone is a massive investment). While it may be possible to build a plutonium device that will work without enrichment the necessary reflectors and shaped charges necessary to actually it to work would make it all but unusable. It is far more likely that they'd simply steal it from a FSU state. And there are plenty of people out there with the knowledge how to reassemble or even make a crude nuke once the fissile material has been procured.

    IMO, you and I aren't that far in terms of opinions.

    Were you only talking about uranium? So now some rag-tag groups of guerrillas are going to actually build a nuclear weapon.
    Once the material has been procured yes. Without the enriched fissile material, it's not going to happen. That's why we should be pushing Nunn-Lugar proposal to lock down all of the enriched and semi-enriched material across the globe. In Allison Graham's book "Nuclear Terrorism," he cites US scientists building a fissile free nuclear device from parts from Radio Shack. If we can build the weapon missing just the material, they can to.

    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.
    Likely. But it's not impossible, especially when you don't have to worry about the missile part. But the capacity to build a crude nuke and steal enriched is not implausible. The fact that people like Ted Turner dropped a huge sum of cash to fund the Belgrade clean up suggests people do consider it a real threat.

    Yeah, because when countries realize someone stole one of their nukes [band enriched material] 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.
    In countries that aren't screwed up like Russia? Absolutely. Do you see people trying to steal from France, UK or China? No. Because they actually have the resources to guard and protect. Ukraine and Russia? Not so much. I'm not worried about nukes and fissile in 1st world (well, US waste is another story). I'm worried about FSU states. And I know you don't think they have the best security around.

    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 quite. Setting timers to bombs is easily done with a phone. Why not a nuke? It just is a really big bomb. Furthermore, most countries don't put the crazy arming devices that the US, France and UK have on their nukes. And terrorists won't bother with that.

    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?
    I'm saying that a non-state actor, once it has a nuke, won't use a missile as that's the least reliable method of delivery.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #108
    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
    There's a huge amount of detail that Mayor has no understanding about.



    They are more likely to get a dirty bomb more than anything else. Or steal a regular size russian nuke. Backpack nukes are a myth.
    So you support the MDA and agree that it should be one of the last military budgets to be cut and would prefer to see this budget increased if at all possible?

    "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. #109
    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
    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.
    I don't have a link for this test.

    Did it say it was a unplanned test? Last I checked, every test was run with the interceptor crews already aware of the time, location and incoming direction of the single incoming missile with some of the earlier ones preprogrammed. And we STILL failed to hit 100% of the time.

    My biggest dig with our "missile defense" is that it doesn't represent real tests. A real incoming salvo will be with multiple targets with decoys. They'll deploy mylar balloons to completely render radar useless and they won't be a scheduled time of launch. Not to mention the incoming missiles will be going a hell of a lot faster. And tested under bad weather conditions. Until we have a test where multiple bogeys are intercepted at top speed and decoys are rendered useless, this is just industrial welfare.

    As understand it, we test under ideal conditions, with dumbed down decoy missiles (not radar confusing mylar) with slower speeds, one or a few targets, knowing when and where the test will occur. I don't see how that's anything to be proud of. It's like shooting the target that you control the speed, distance and movement of.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #110
    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
    So you support the MDA and agree that it should be one of the last military budgets to be cut and would prefer to see this budget increased if at all possible?
    Actually I think we should cut MDA immediately and beef up port and border security. As long as North Korea's leadership expects to stay in power, no nuke will be used. And Iran is not crazy. Nuclear launches from states is pretty much not going to happen. What we should be worrying about is the large amount of fissile material and loose nukes out there. Couple that with our uber-crappy border control and it's a real eye opener.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 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
  •