obvious Child

Seriously Goobieman?

You're praising a system that failed 33% in eliminating it, knowing exactly where, when, and on what trajectory its target would be coming in?

Furthermore, the missiles aren't even inbound! How is that representative of what we'd actually face?

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

rathi

Missiles don't have a predetermined path, and even if they did, we wouldn't know it beforehand.

Under conditions that don't exist in the real world. It was testing designed for proof-of-concept and testing technological elements. It does not accurately test real-world performance.

Correct. Many of those system all failed rather badly, see ABM in the gulf war. However, they still received testing that simulated battlefield experience, which this system has not.

Yeah and I can dodge bullets if you tell me where they are going to aim at and when they are going to be fired. However, in real life, I get shot and the missiles don't get intercepted.

I don't agree, but I will concede the point because I don't really care. Assuming you are correct, what are the implications.

So if an personal with irrational fears was pointing a gun at your head, you wouldn't try and keep them calm?

The missiles were deployed in Turkey in '61. Let me quote the wikipedia article on the crisis. "Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey"

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Goobieman

They're called ballistic missiles for a reason - they follow a ballistic path.
And their path, determined at the time of booter burn-out, is then easily calculated.
Thus, your 'dont know the path ahead of time' argument is meaningless.

Tell me:
Does the testing show that the concept - hitting incoling targets with kenetic-kill interceptors - is proven?
Be honest, now...

Simulated battlefield? Sure it has. Each of the tests simulate the battlefield, even if only part of it.

Non sequitur.

That conditions now mean nothing regarding conditions 30 years from now.
There's no way at all you can argue that we won't face a threat in the relatively near future that will necessitate a NMD.

We're not trying to "calm them' - we're offering to blow the guy with the gun to make him go away.

The NMD has no effect on Russian detrrent. All of our actions should be considered under that fact.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

rathi

Thats simply not true. The Patriots missiles failed in Iraq because of the Scuds unpredicted final stage movement. I am not sure if they have update their techniques or not, but a live test is needed to prove their capabilities. If it was as easy as you claim, they would have no problems with the test.

Yes. However, there is a large difference between successful
concept and field-usable.

You need to simulate every single part of the battlefield simultaneously if you want to gauge real life use.

Try analogy. My point is that if you control the environment (knowing when and where bullets will be) you can do things otherwise impossible (like dodging bullets) in real life (where you get shot). The missile testing controls the environment and thus can deliver performance that doesn't reflect real world use.

Lets first specify the current system being deployed in Poland, not NMD in general. The current NMD has no proven ability to hit anything, so it would have no benefit if ABM systems were needed. Furthermore, as you pointed out, the future can bring unexpected enemies. Maybe Poland is our enemy in 30 years and we handed them tools to use against us. We can't predict what will happen, so we have no idea if the system will be good or bad in the future.

No, I am offering that we don't pull out toy weapons and spook him. Sure that airsoft gun can't hurt him, but it still is going to make him nervous.

Is their a reason why you think that actual truth means anything in politics? Look at the world around us. How many times has fear won out over logic in these times?

Goobieman

This is just dishonest.

Most of this discussion here has revolved around you being dishonest or making arguments based on faulty/incorrect information, and me correcting you on same.

I'm rather tired of doing that.

So, you go ahead and think what you want, no matter how wrong you are.

scourge99

**** the Russians. If we wanna build a missile shield then we don't need to ask permission. Are we going to ask permission to build spy satellites and stealth bombers until they can build anti-satellite missiles and stealth bomber detectors? I don't think so.

This missile shield clearly is not useful against their technology. Could it be in the future? Yes! We shouldn't have to justify DEFENSIVE weaponary when the cold-war is over.

Russians are playing the old cry like a baby routine until they can catch-up or steal our technology to level the field.

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

rathi

Its quite simple. My standard for recognizing the ability of the missile shield to function is that they conducts tests that accurately simulate the conditions under which the system would intercept missiles in real life. Until then, the system should not be considered an operational missile shield. Its quite possible that the system will be completed and undergo such tests in the future. However, here and now, these interceptors have not been proven.


If you want to bring our debate to our close, its your choice.

scourge99

Remember when we obliterated that falling satellite?

Was that just luck?

rathi

No, we had weapons system capable of targeting the satellite and they proved effective. However, that doesn't mean anything about our capability to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Goobieman

Yes. Because shooting down a satellite with the NMD isn't a real-world test of the NMD.