Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 123

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

  1. #111
    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
    What makes you think that? Furthermore, why are we spending huge amounts to beef up radioactivity searches at ports? Since it won't work.
    Let me start with the less obvious. You probably arenít aware that anything enriched to weapons grade material is easily detected by satellite unless it is encased in massive amounts of extremely dense material. Trust me on this one.

    As for why we are beefing up radioactivity searches at ports, it should be obvious that a ship can transport a nuclear devise while also enclosing it in said heavy encasing. Satellite detection isnít as reliable when dealing with vessels that can transport huge payloads.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The net investment to produce a viable nuclear tipped ICBM that can successfully bypass the fledgling American Missile Defense at the same time as survive a Patriot missile volley is at least a billion dollars. The countries that can do this already have it and aren't really threats in that aspect. North Korea's missiles are more of a export rather then a real threat.
    If Japan gets nuked by China, it would be a crushing economic blow to the USA and it would require a massive nuclear salvo in response due to our treaty obligations. Same goes for Taiwan and South Korea. Why not field a defensive shield that will detour such an attack rather than absorb it and escalate the carnage with a response that would be absolutely required?


    It is also important to note that the US naval fleet needs to defend itself from missile attacks, nuclear or other, as well. Can you justify not defending an entire US carrier group against missile strikes?


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    In that aspect, Missile defense is stupid as the threat we face from nukes won't come via missile.
    Again, you show your ignorance. The threat we face from missiles is the destruction they carry, whether they are armed with a nuke or not. Just because you can dream up countless other threat scenarios doesnít reduce the threat that missiles pose to our bases around the world, our fleets across the oceans or our cities here in the USA.

    If you hack my responses into little out of context pieces, Iíll show you no respect in the future. My paragraphs are small enough to quote so don't be a hack.

    "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.

  2. #112
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

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

    A strong defensive deterrent is much cheaper than just waiting to be forced to go on the offensive.

  3. #113
    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
    China canít build nukes that small yet either. Clinton passed them missile tech. Miniaturization of nukes is a completely separate tech.
    Yeah, whatever. W88 isn't a missile, it's a warhead technology.

    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.
    So?

    The Mayor's statements are in the context of someone have an ICBM shooting it at us. That's generally what ICBM missile defenses are for, and it matters not if the weapon is launched by a terrorist nation or a terrorist group or by smurfs. The need is to protect the nation from the incoming warhead.

    Is that clear yet?

    Red Herring Alert. Stop wasting my time with such trivial drool.
    Stop wasting the forum's time by pretending you're incapable of seeing inferences posted in your face.


    Or admit you're outclassed and can't figure out elementary rhetorical technique.

    The purpos of the Mayor's references to the scaled up terrorists attack is plain.

    Another Red Herring.
    You seem to have difficulty recognizing when your arguments are blown out of the water and for some reason you see communist fish everywhere.

    I place reasonable limits on anyone who doesnít have the technical capacity to carry out a specific threat.
    Yes, it was plain you like to underestimate the enemy if by doing so you can pretend to yourself that defending the United States is unnecessary.

    Since, however, it was shown that your assumptions have been repeatedly disproven, you're establishing reputation for ideological blindness, and you're doing nothing else.

    To claim terrorists "can't" get an ICBM flies in the face of the fact that they've been able to do things the "experts" previously said they couldn't do. YOU know they "can't" do this because of some special inside information? Hardly. History shows the enemy is adaptable and determined, and the aphorism "where there's a will, there's a way" cannot be ignored.

    If I told you I was going to blow up the moon would you call 911 or would you laugh it off?
    The moon has a mass of 10^22 kg, and yes, that claim would be absurd, as human technology is not capable of controlling the energy needed to disperse that mass outside it's gravitational radius. We don't even have the ability to make it change orbit a teensy bit.

    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.
    And the Mayor has pointed out that the Chinese have been handed that technology by the Clintions, and that terrorists exist.

    These all seem to be facts you wish to ignore.

  4. #114
    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
    I saw what you claim was transferred by Clinton but you donít know what you are talking about. Like I said, it was missile tech. not micro nuke tech. Clinton and Chinese Missiles

    The rest of your post didnít even warrant a response it was so stupid.

    Sad thing is, I would love to stick around and watch you make a fool of yourself some more but this will be the last time, at least for 8 weeks, that I can smack you down like the dumb little biatch you pretend to be.

    Stay safe, God Bless America, and be good to one another.

    GPS_Flex out.

    "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.

  5. #115
    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
    So you admit your earlier statement about there being no missile defense in the US is wrong then?
    Nope. Your failure to read proper context isn't the Mayor's problem. The technology exists, it needs to be assembled in the proper place to do the proper job. Last time the Mayor looked, there are not ABM defenses protecting Los Angeles.

    Short memory partisan hacks have. I guess you gotta have a memory issue to be a hack eh?
    So, what this means is that you're incapable of arguing relevant issues and have to pretend all refutations of your incorrect statements are due to the better ideology everyone who opposes you possesses.

    [quote]Furthermore, there is no such thing as a stealth MRV. A basic infrared camera will pick up any MRV coming inquote]

    How foolish. Gee, there's no one with any knowledge of cooling that can reduce the temperature of the ballistic missile, by pre-cooling it prior to launch, so thermal signature is weak enough, not to mention SMALL enough, that all-sky scans won't pick it up. This is a fairly simple task. Heck, almost all spacecraft launches start with an airconitioned environmetally controlled fairing so the mechanical properties of the structure aren't compromised by even a 10 degree shift from the room temperature it was assembled in.

    Using a bit of liquid argon to cool the warhead to reduce it's thermal signature is simple.

    It appears you do not understand what stealth is.
    No, you don't. Stealthing is the process of reducing as much signature as possible in the E-M spectrum to minimize detection by the expected detection technology. The ablative shield will have an outermost coating of a radar frequency absorbent material, and the shape of the blunt re-entry face will be angled to reflect incident radar away from the source. Thermally, the thing will be cooled.

    There's reasons why launch phase detection and destruction is important technology we need to perfect.

    What patriots suck at is determining which target is real and which is a decoy. Even the Israeli Arrow isn't good at that.
    Yup, which means, according to you, that the United States should just bend over and pull it's cheeks open wide.

    What it really means is that there are areas requiring further research to improve the ABM system's effectiveness.

    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.
    Well, the Mayor isn't stupid enough to think that a warhead in re-entry, which means it's less than 30 seconds from it's target, can be stopped. The Mayor kind of figured you'd think that, though.

    Just for some reason.

    Clearly, anyone who bothered to think about the circumstances would realize the impossibility of hiding the plasma cone of the re-entrant warhead, just as everyone capable of thought realizes that anti-missile projectiles can't do anything in the time remaining.

    Even lasers would have difficulty siting such a target, and the buffeting of the re-entry phase would eliminate effective targeting even if it wasn't buried in a flaming plasma trail. Not to mention that refraction effects in the heated cone, plus the density discontinuities in the shock wave, would deflect and disperse the beam.

    But, those things are obvious only to persons who can think about the issue clearly.

    on the contrary, I've forgotten more about it then you know...which honestly isn't much.
    Well, that first part is evident.

    Meanwhile, MAD was and always will be a foolish policy.

    The Mayor's description of MAD, as it was insanely practiced by the US and the USSR included having massive overkill capability, a determination that neither side should do anything effective to protect it's civillian populations in the way of hardened bunkers or stockpiling of supplies or, heaven forbid, attempting to intercept the enemy's first strike.

    MAD worked for one reason. It wasn't put to the test. There were two players at the MAD game, and neither player saw any way in which their first strike could decapitate their enemy's nuclear response.

    MAD won't work in a world where insane jihadists run countries or have access to national resources and assets, as is the perpetual risk in Pakistan and soon Iran.

    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?
    Absolutely. It would be our **** landing in their front yard. Only a fool is going to think there won't be third parties, significant third parties, chiming in and protesting US action. Welcome to the real world. It'll bite you in the ass if you ignore it or pretend it isn't what it really is.

    Second, you think that Iran will launch a nuke knowing full well that we will turn them into glass?
    So, what the Mayor said is invisible to you? Perhaps you need to change the background color to something different from your font color?

    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.
    So, you never heard of Code Pink....well, that lunatic bunch vanished when Obama was elected....but there's GreenPeice, which hates the US and would exert pressure to "stop the escalation, vengeance isn't the answer," and there's the left wind Sierra Club, and since Obama has shown he's not especially interested in promoting the interests of the United States, it's perfectly possible that under some Presidents the decision to respond in kind will be indefinitely delayed.

    You can deny the reality of the hatred the political left has for America all you want, the fact remains that it's not assured that the President will order the retaliatory strike, and only the president can issue that order.

    And Russia, Pakistan, China and India will nuke the US over Iran attacking the US FIRST? Really? That may be worth a basement mockery.
    If you wish. Since the Mayor won't be seeing, have fun. Are all you liberals so blind you can't see reality?

    Hence why a state wouldn't use a missile. Hence my original point. Imagine that. A missile is instantly identifiable. That invites retaliation.
    Oh?

    Really?

    Someone launches a missile from a tramp freighter in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and abandons the ship to sink, and you think it's guaranteed to be traced to the nation of origin? Funny thing about missiles, too. The rockets are incinerated on re-entry and finding the bits is rather difficult. The bomb, of course, self-destructs.

    So, it's indeed possible to delay the onset of retaliation long enough to allow normal political pressures to prevent the retaliation. All the pro-abortion baby killers in the American left would start whining about how the children in the offending country didn't do anything to be incinerated, they'll babble about how "eye for an eye" is so BC...er BCE. And international pressure will mount for restraint.

    That's as certain as the muslim upbringing of our current president.

  6. #116
    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
    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.
    You must be the judge of those competitions.
    Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 04-22-11 at 07:22 AM.

  7. #117
    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
    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.
    That's like shutting the windows, and locking the door to keep the mosquitoes out of your backyard. It's still open to the sky.

    Yeah, you missed the lecture that pointed out that the terrorists attack our weaknesses, not our strengths.

  8. #118
    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
    I saw what you claim was transferred by Clinton but you don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said, it was missile tech. not micro nuke tech. Clinton and Chinese Missiles

    The rest of your post didn’t even warrant a response it was so stupid.

    Sad thing is, I would love to stick around and watch you make a fool of yourself some more but this will be the last time, at least for 8 weeks, that I can smack you down like the dumb little biatch you pretend to be.

    Stay safe, God Bless America, and be good to one another.

    GPS_Flex out.
    Yes, and the Mayor wasn't discussing Clinton's deal with Bernie Schartz to sell MIRV technology to China, but the theft under Clinton's adminstration of W88 technology for American labs by Chinese spies.

    The Mayor is aware that it was fairly pointless for China to be engaged in espionage when Clinton was giving them store openly, but still, China took W88 technology from Clinton. For whatever reason you want to pretend the Wen Ho Lee incident didn't happen, it did.

    That the details were never fully resolved is what happens when the White House is busy playing politica coverup instead of defending the nation. No administation in the history of the nation was more corrupt than Clintion's, and since his self-interest was better served by obscuring the events than in uncovering them, it's not surprising the full details can't be determined.

    Nevertheless, the Chinese gained access to our W88 technology under Clinton.

    Want the Mayor to say it again, or are you going to ignore it anyway and continue to pretend the Mayor is discussing launch vehicles?

  9. #119
    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
    Let me start with the less obvious. You probably arenít aware that anything enriched to weapons grade material is easily detected by satellite unless it is encased in massive amounts of extremely dense material. Trust me on this one.
    Somehow that doesn't make sense to me. By that reasoning, we should be able to track all nuclear weapons across the planet. Basically ever Typhoon II is trackable by satellite. Not to mention that highly enriched material for research in small quantities is traceable. That just doesn't sound right.

    If Japan gets nuked by China, it would be a crushing economic blow to the USA and it would require a massive nuclear salvo in response due to our treaty obligations. Same goes for Taiwan and South Korea. Why not field a defensive shield that will detour such an attack rather than absorb it and escalate the carnage with a response that would be absolutely required?
    Why on earth would China do such a thing? If we base our spending on what may occur rather then what is likely, we'd go broke in months. Besides, Japan has been under the Umbrella for decades. What compelling reason is there to spend hundreds of billions on a defense that likely will never see an attack?

    It is also important to note that the US naval fleet needs to defend itself from missile attacks, nuclear or other, as well. Can you justify not defending an entire US carrier group against missile strikes?
    ICBM defense doesn't stop supersonic nuclear tipped sea skimmers. Those are two entirely different threats. Besides, that threat has been around since the late 80s. Russian Granit anti-shipping missiles aren't anything new. What amuses me is that the press is going ga-ga over China's new anti-Carrier missile while ignoring that Russia's had it for two decades.

    Again, you show your ignorance. The threat we face from missiles is the destruction they carry, whether they are armed with a nuke or not.
    You appear to be unaware of the people actually trying to kill us. Will Osama use a missile? No. Are there countries out there with missiles capable of doing real damage with potential payloads? Absolutely. Are they likely to actually use them? Not at all. This is basic cost verse benefit. I see no reason to spend hundreds of billions on a defense that will never see use and forgo spending on defenses that we actually need now. I never argued that there aren't missile threats. I just argued that the likelihood of them actually being carried out is low. Compared to the threat of Islamic terrorism who won't use a missile.

    Just because you can dream up countless other threat scenarios doesnít reduce the threat that missiles pose to our bases around the world, our fleets across the oceans or our cities here in the USA.
    By that measure we should spend trillions to defend against all potential threats, even if they are exceedingly unlikely. How is that a reasonable position?

    If you hack my responses into little out of context pieces, Iíll show you no respect in the future. My paragraphs are small enough to quote so don't be a hack.
    Come again? Specifically citing what you are replying to prevents long drag on posts.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #120
    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 lpast View Post
    A strong defensive deterrent is much cheaper than just waiting to be forced to go on the offensive.
    By such a measure, we don't need missile defense as our nuclear 2nd strike not to mention overwhelming conventional is a sufficent deterrence to an actual missile strike.

    Do you know why many countries are against the US leading the zero nuke policy? Because they got nothing to counter our conventional hegemony once that occurs.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 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
  •