• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Navy sailors aboard the Aegis destroyer USS O’KANE (DDG 77), and Soldiers from the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command operating from the 613th Air and Space Operations Center at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, successfully conducted a flight test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System, resulting in the intercept of a separating ballistic missile target over the Pacific Ocean. This successful test demonstrated the capability of the first phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) announced by the President in September, 2009.
FTM-15 is the 21st successful intercept, in 25 attempts, for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002. Across all BMDS elements, this is the 45th successful hit-to-kill intercept in 58 flight tests since 2001.
LINK: Sea-based Missile Defense Flight Test Results in Successful Intercept
Bravo!!! :applaud Score another one for the good guys!!!:shoot

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.
 
This is a result of the on going Star Wars defense programs started way beck in the President Reagan Administration.

In the beginning it was wishful thinking but out of it we got the Patriot anti-missile system and much more.

Our defense systems are such that other nations are spending like mad tying to find ways to defeat our systems and it costs them plenty most don't have yo do it.

We have shown that we have the ability to send not only missiles but bombers from here to any place in the world and strike with impunity and return in detected.

I for one am very proud of our military and each and everyone person in the ranks.

I salute each and every one of them . SALUTE! :2usflag:
 
I wonder how many schools could have been built with the money that was/is invested in this project.

Time to turn up the propaganda again?

Message Machine - Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - Series - NYTimes.com



Would those schools be ballistic missle proof? Is the DOE more frugal than the DOD? Are you really arguing that we should take the money from MDA and give it to DOE because there is waste in the DOD?

And I think you could probably build between 5 & 7 schools for the $75,000,000 you are so worried about.
 
Last edited:
I think people tend to forget that there's a difference between research on IRBM defense and ICBM defense. It's the second one that is a serious concern for Russia/US relations, not the first. (there's also a monumental difference in the engineering difficulties)

Figuring out how to shoot down North Korea's duct-taped Taepodongs is fine and dandy, but upsetting the MAD situation between the US and Russia could be basically suicide.
 
I think people tend to forget that there's a difference between research on IRBM defense and ICBM defense. It's the second one that is a serious concern for Russia/US relations, not the first. (there's also a monumental difference in the engineering difficulties)

Figuring out how to shoot down North Korea's duct-taped Taepodongs is fine and dandy, but upsetting the MAD situation between the US and Russia could be basically suicide.

That's an absurd way of looking at it considering Mutually Assured Destruction is both nonsense and a suicidal doctrine itself. I can get why people want to trim down defense spending in other areas, but this is a basic matter of self-defense. Any leader that is not willing to build the necessary defenses for its people should not be a leader. Where there is waste it can be dealt with, if a project is not working it can be canceled, but getting rid of a defensive system to satisfy another country that looks to benefit from the lack of such a system is suicidal.
 
That's an absurd way of looking at it considering Mutually Assured Destruction is both nonsense and a suicidal doctrine itself. I can get why people want to trim down defense spending in other areas, but this is a basic matter of self-defense. Any leader that is not willing to build the necessary defenses for its people should not be a leader. Where there is waste it can be dealt with, if a project is not working it can be canceled, but getting rid of a defensive system to satisfy another country that looks to benefit from the lack of such a system is suicidal.

You and I have guns pointed at eachother. We're both good shots, so there's no chance for us to miss. We don't like eachother, but if either of us pulls the trigger and kills the other, we'll get shot ourselves in response. So we stand there, day after day, year after year.

Then one day you see me putting on a bullet-proof vest. You have two options:
1) Do nothing and allow a situation to develop where your enemy can kill you but you can't kill him, just praying that he elects not to do so.
2) Pull the trigger.

The kevlar has introduced a destabilizing element to the situation. Except in the real world the danger isn't two jerks shooting eachother, it's global thermonuclear war.
 
You and I have guns pointed at eachother. We're both good shots, so there's no chance for us to miss. We don't like eachother, but if either of us pulls the trigger and kills the other, we'll get shot ourselves in response. So we stand there, day after day, year after year.

Then one day you see me putting on a bullet-proof vest. You have two options:
1) Do nothing and allow a situation to develop where your enemy can kill you but you can't kill him, just praying that he elects not to do so.
2) Pull the trigger.

The kevlar has introduced a destabilizing element to the situation. Except in the real world the danger isn't two jerks shooting eachother, it's global thermonuclear war.

Sorry, but the argument is complete garbage. The assumption that both sides will destroy each other is false. Both sides know the key is to destroy as much of the opposing power's nuclear capabilities as possible in the first strike and thus limit their ability to respond. It has never been a deterrent because both sides also know neither side is going to try and destroy the other with nuclear weapons in such a strike. What prevented nuclear war was the same thing that prevents any war even between conventional military forces. People want to avoid conflict wherever possible because it has inherent risks.
 
I think people tend to forget that there's a difference between research on IRBM defense and ICBM defense. It's the second one that is a serious concern for Russia/US relations, not the first. (there's also a monumental difference in the engineering difficulties)

Figuring out how to shoot down North Korea's duct-taped Taepodongs is fine and dandy, but upsetting the MAD situation between the US and Russia could be basically suicide.

You and I have guns pointed at eachother. We're both good shots, so there's no chance for us to miss. We don't like eachother, but if either of us pulls the trigger and kills the other, we'll get shot ourselves in response. So we stand there, day after day, year after year.

Then one day you see me putting on a bullet-proof vest. You have two options:
1) Do nothing and allow a situation to develop where your enemy can kill you but you can't kill him, just praying that he elects not to do so.
2) Pull the trigger.

The kevlar has introduced a destabilizing element to the situation. Except in the real world the danger isn't two jerks shooting eachother, it's global thermonuclear war.

Deuce, your dog won’t hunt so hang up the tired old MAD/ICBM arguments and join us here in the 21st century. MAD is a relic of the past as evidenced by the New Start Treaty.

BTW, your “You and I have guns pointed at each other” game always makes me laugh because it reminds me of a kid who likes to make up the rules to the game he’s playing whenever he starts losing. Let me try my hand at it:

Someone is going to fire a nuclear ballistic missile at the USA. You have 2 options:
1) Pay a trillion dollars for a missile defense system that can shoot it down before it reaches the US
2) Do nothing and watch a major American city like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle or Honolulu get vaporized

The proliferation of nuclear and missile technology has introduced a destabilizing element to the MAD situation because in the real world the danger isn’t nuclear war between the USSR and the USA, the danger comes from the inevitable launch of a nuke by some nut case dictator or terrorist group, at the US or one of its allies.
 
Last edited:
I think people tend to forget that there's a difference between research on IRBM defense and ICBM defense. It's the second one that is a serious concern for Russia/US relations, not the first. (there's also a monumental difference in the engineering difficulties)

Figuring out how to shoot down North Korea's duct-taped Taepodongs is fine and dandy, but upsetting the MAD situation between the US and Russia could be basically suicide.

No. MAD is suicide. Creating the necessary missile defenses the Constitution actually requires the government to build ("provide for the common defence", not "kill the enemy after they murder us".) doesn't destabilize anything, unless the Russians are already intending to attack us, anyway.

No, if the Russians and now the Chinese decide they don't like that the US is building an effective missile defense and they don't have one, their choice is clear:

They have to build their own missile defenses.

The Mexican stand off of MAD is, of course, madness. It's Agent Starling in the dark basement with Buffalo Bill, playing hide and seek.
 
How long until the Chinese manage to steal this???

The Chinese won't. Certainly Obama will hand it to them if asked. Clinton certainly tried to give away the store, and Obama hates the US even more.
 
Then again, American schools have done more damage to Americans than nuclear weapons have so far.
 
Then again, American schools have done more damage to Americans than nuclear weapons have so far.

How can we teachers teach kids when their parents don't push their kids to do homework and instead let their kids play basketball all hours of the night???
 
Then again, American schools have done more damage to Americans than nuclear weapons have so far.

I would have to agree in part but feel the need to qualify it by pointing the blame at teachers’ unions instead.

Iteresting point though considering one of the original repliers to this thread wondered how many schools we could build with the money we spend on missile defense.
 
How can we teachers teach kids when their parents don't push their kids to do homework and instead let their kids play basketball all hours of the night???

You can fail them until they do the homework and learn the subject being taught.
 
How is social programs considered wasteful but this not?
Why do we really "need" this?
Is Russia, Canada, China, or Iran going to invade us soon or are we on the threat of being invaded by them?
 
How is social programs considered wasteful but this not?
Why do we really "need" this?
Is Russia, Canada, China, or Iran going to invade us soon or are we on the threat of being invaded by them?

The threat of being “invaded” by a missile is real but I wouldn’t put Russia or China very high on the list of possible threats and only a buffoon would consider Canada a threat.

As to why this we should fund this vs social programs: Government is wasteful no matter what it does. Social programs aren’t constitutionally mandated but programs like this are. Besides, even if the government were capable of running every social program under the sun with 99% efficiency, they would all be worthless if/and when a nuke hit a major city.

Take your buddy Hugo Chavez as an example. If he builds utopia in Venezuela but the USA decides to bomb him into the stone age, his utopian programs will be pretty worthless at that point won’t they?
 
The threat of being “invaded” by a missile is real but I wouldn’t put Russia or China very high on the list of possible threats and only a buffoon would consider Canada a threat.

As to why this we should fund this vs social programs: Government is wasteful no matter what it does. Social programs aren’t constitutionally mandated but programs like this are. Besides, even if the government were capable of running every social program under the sun with 99% efficiency, they would all be worthless if/and when a nuke hit a major city.

Take your buddy Hugo Chavez as an example. If he builds utopia in Venezuela but the USA decides to bomb him into the stone age, his utopian programs will be pretty worthless at that point won’t they?

Still we already spend 687,105,000,000, which is 4.7% of the GDP. China comes in second wayyyy behind us 114,300,000,000 which is only 2.2% of their GDP. Do we really "need" to do this. No matter what it states in the constitution that does not excuse the grave amount we spend on defense. Hell when our country was on the red button during the height of the cold way we did not even spend this much!
The question is there is really not red hot rhetoric which was going on during the Cold War.. We waste so much money on defense why not help people out?
It seems like its ok to spend money on weapons that are meant to kill people but its the most grave evil to spend money on programs that will help people out.
Well Chavez does not spend a ridiculous amount of money on Defense sooo yea.. Yea they would be worthless, but im guessing the US does not want to start a nuclear war by bombing Valenzuela into the stone ages.. Or nor do i think no one is going to Nuke the USA, mainly because once one nuke is dropped then the end of the world in my opinion is just done for.
 
How long until the Chinese manage to steal this???

They won't have to steal it. Corporations are loyal to the strong currency and the renminbi is really comin' on. Corporations are in business to make money and if the Chinese offer the top dollar, they will own the technology. That is the American Corporate way. They don't live and breathe and I don't notice anything about patriotism in an accounting ledger. The sad facts!
 
Still we already spend 687,105,000,000, which is 4.7% of the GDP. China comes in second wayyyy behind us 114,300,000,000 which is only 2.2% of their GDP. Do we really "need" to do this. No matter what it states in the constitution that does not excuse the grave amount we spend on defense. Hell when our country was on the red button during the height of the cold way we did not even spend this much!
The question is there is really not red hot rhetoric which was going on during the Cold War.. We waste so much money on defense why not help people out?
It seems like its ok to spend money on weapons that are meant to kill people but its the most grave evil to spend money on programs that will help people out.
Well Chavez does not spend a ridiculous amount of money on Defense sooo yea.. Yea they would be worthless, but im guessing the US does not want to start a nuclear war by bombing Valenzuela into the stone ages.. Or nor do i think no one is going to Nuke the USA, mainly because once one nuke is dropped then the end of the world in my opinion is just done for.

Yes, we must do this particular program full steam ahead. Don’t get me wrong, I think we need to cut the military budget significantly, at least for a while, to around 3.5% of GDP but missile defense is an area we need to increase the budget in.

I think you, being a person who wants to see the US not kill people but help people, should be behind this program 100%. The missile defense program isn’t an offensive weapon; it is a defensive weapon that will save lives if and when a missile is launched at the US or one of its allies. You are an American right? You do want to protect the American people right?

The likelihood of a world ending salvo of nuclear strikes is pretty remote now days. Russia isn’t interested in playing the MAD game anymore than China would/will be if/when it builds up a sizable arsenal. Russia and/or China might be willing to help other nations “covertly” acquire the ability to launch a missile at the US, as evidenced by the growing threat from North Korea and Iran.

We can ill afford to wait until such irrational nations or possibly terrorists groups are capable of launching a nuke at the US. We need to do the research today and further develop the defensive capabilities today that will be required to protect the US in the future.
 
They won't have to steal it. Corporations are loyal to the strong currency and the renminbi is really comin' on. Corporations are in business to make money and if the Chinese offer the top dollar, they will own the technology. That is the American Corporate way. They don't live and breathe and I don't notice anything about patriotism in an accounting ledger. The sad facts!

American corporations that work in the American defense sector aren’t about to sell America out to the highest bidder. You have some serious issues if you think otherwise.
 
American corporations that work in the American defense sector aren’t about to sell America out to the highest bidder. You have some serious issues if you think otherwise.

Well other corporations slash jobs in America and ship the jobs over seas... Why wouldnt they sell weapons to the highest bidder? Isnt that "capitalism"?
 
Well other corporations slash jobs in America and ship the jobs over seas... Why wouldnt they sell weapons to the highest bidder? Isnt that "capitalism"?

This isn’t even logical enough to bother with. I have no clue what your point is.
 
Yes, we must do this particular program full steam ahead. Don’t get me wrong, I think we need to cut the military budget significantly, at least for a while, to around 3.5% of GDP but missile defense is an area we need to increase the budget in.

I think you, being a person who wants to see the US not kill people but help people, should be behind this program 100%. The missile defense program isn’t an offensive weapon; it is a defensive weapon that will save lives if and when a missile is launched at the US or one of its allies. You are an American right? You do want to protect the American people right?

The likelihood of a world ending salvo of nuclear strikes is pretty remote now days. Russia isn’t interested in playing the MAD game anymore than China would/will be if/when it builds up a sizable arsenal. Russia and/or China might be willing to help other nations “covertly” acquire the ability to launch a missile at the US, as evidenced by the growing threat from North Korea and Iran.

We can ill afford to wait until such irrational nations or possibly terrorists groups are capable of launching a nuke at the US. We need to do the research today and further develop the defensive capabilities today that will be required to protect the US in the future.

Why must we? Were in no serious danger what so ever! Were not in danger! If we wanna start cutting defense lets cut this.
Yea remote so why do we have to waste tax payer money on this? I seriously think they wont give weapons to anyone that wants to bomb us.. Sure Iran talks a lot of big game but in all serious do you think they are actually going to use these weapons?
 
Back
Top Bottom