U.S., Czech missile deal prompts Moscow warning - Page 8

rathi · 07-16-08, 04:35 PM

Quote:

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

Its a satellite, not an incoming ballistic missile. Its still not a comparable test. Furthermore, the Navy's system shot down the satellite, not the system that was going to be deployed in Poland.

Goobieman · 07-16-08, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Its a satellite, not an incoming ballistic missile.

What, exactly, is the practical difference?

Quote:

Furthermore, the Navy's system shot down the satellite, not the system that was going to be deployed in Poland.

Glad to see you figured out the difference.

Orius · 07-16-08, 06:32 PM

Goobieman, I don't think you understand the scientific method very well. What you are proposing is that the results of a test in a lab situation (wherein all variables are fixed and pre-determined) are automatically applicable to a real world situation. Even in the test where the variables were pre-determined, the shield technology still had a 33% fail rate. Why are you overlooking this basic data?

I think rathi's point is that it may or may not work, and this fact is uncertain given that the shield has never been tested in a real-world situation where the variables are much more diverse and unpredictable. There is a probability that it could be effective, but going ahead and installing the shield based on that probability is rather foolhardy indeed. The lack of conclusive data proves that this shield cannot be called effective by any stretch of the imagination. Given that, it is reasonable to ask why such a shield is being deployed at all, at high diplomatic costs to relations between the U.S. and Russia.

I still say it has more to do with development contracts than it does with actual defense. You said it yourself: Russia has more than enough nuclear arms to counter the interceptors, in which case why is the U.S. risking diplomatic confrontation by putting it so close to Russia?

scourge99 · 07-16-08, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orius

Goobieman, I don't think you understand the scientific method very well. What you are proposing is that the results of a test in a lab situation (wherein all variables are fixed and pre-determined) are automatically applicable to a real world situation. Even in the test where the variables were pre-determined, the shield technology still had a 33% fail rate.

where's the article for this stat you have?

Quote:

I think rathi's point is that it may or may not work, and this fact is uncertain given that the shield has never been tested in a real-world situation where the variables are much more diverse and unpredictable.

I alrdy gave you a real world example: the falling satellite. You think that thing was standing still relative to the earth

Quote:

There is a probability that it could be effective, but going ahead and installing the shield based on that probability is rather foolhardy indeed. The lack of conclusive data proves that this shield cannot be called effective by any stretch of the imagination.

Still wondering where you got your stats from? I'm pretty sure the gov't keeps that kind of sensitive information classified. They usually let known our capabilties but not the specific stats. Why is this an exception and why is there so many raytheon videos showing the system working?

Quote:

Given that, it is reasonable to ask why such a shield is being deployed at all, at high diplomatic costs to relations between the U.S. and Russia.

Do we have to check with Russia when we do everything now, especially protecting ourselves with DEFENSIVE equipment. Maybe we should ask them if our troops can wear body armor too; wouldn't want to hurt our relations with them.

Quote:

I still say it has more to do with development contracts than it does with actual defense. You said it yourself: Russia has more than enough nuclear arms to counter the interceptors, in which case why is the U.S. risking diplomatic confrontation by putting it so close to Russia?

That's a good question. You think that just maybe the good ol' reporters are ignoring this and letting your imagination run wild or that the administration is lying so they can intentionally piss of the Russians with a system the is easily defeated with their level of technology. Hmmmmmmm.

scourge99 · 07-16-08, 10:17 PM

Missile Defense Agency

Look at all those failures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/08news0071.pdf

This was the 35th successful hit-to-kill intercept of 43 attempts in the
atmosphere and in space since 2001, and was the 29th of 30 successful tests conducted since September
2005.
This was the fifth successful intercept for the current THAAD program in five attempts.

Looks like a real failure.

Word on the street is we have the smartest brains from the industry being lent out to the Missile Defense Agency for consulting/engineering and they are kicking ass.

American · 07-16-08, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jujuman13

One should see this from the point of view of Russia.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union Russia has seen that NATO is creeping ever closer to the Motherland.
Russia has been invaded twice in recent times, first by Napoleon second by the Nazi's.
Russians are fearful for their own security, thus they tend to have knee jerk reactions to any move that THEY THINK is a threat to that security.
The USA acted in a very similar way at the time of the Cuban crisis.
Fortunately Russia blinked.
Now she sees herself as being threatened in a like manner.
What do you who write on these blogs, imagine the US would do if say Chavez of Venezuela agreed to the siting of Russian Missiles on Venezuelan territory?
I can just imagine the squeals of protest and outpourings of insistance that the US nuke Venezuela into the stone age.
I am not a fan of Russian Government, it is even more corrupt than most other Governments, but if Missiles are sited in Poland and Radar stations in Cheque republic, then IMO all hell will be let loose.

Does the American missile shield contain nuclear warheads? Hmmm?

obvious Child · 07-16-08, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Does the American missile shield contain nuclear warheads? Hmmm?

Probably not. The US abandoned that idea in the 80s due to the left over radiation that blocked all radar. Can't see squat after a nuclear interceptor is used. Generally a bad idea given that they can launch another missile and you're blind.

obvious Child · 07-16-08, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Look at all those failures.

Looks like a real failure.

Word on the street is we have the smartest brains from the industry being lent out to the Missile Defense Agency for consulting/engineering and they are kicking ass.

How many of those were inbound and where the interceptor crews were not given all of the preplanned timing, location and trajectory information prior to the launch?

scourge99 · 07-16-08, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

How many of those were inbound and where the interceptor crews were not given all of the preplanned timing, location and trajectory information prior to the launch?

Do you even have a damn clue how they tested or are you just making this **** up as you go along?

Goobieman · 07-17-08, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orius

Goobieman, I don't think you understand the scientific method very well.

Of course you don't.

Quote:

What you are proposing is that the results of a test in a lab situation (wherein all variables are fixed and pre-determined) are automatically applicable to a real world situation. Even in the test where the variables were pre-determined, the shield technology still had a 33% fail rate. Why are you overlooking this basic data?

I'm confused. 33% fail rate?

Quote:

I think rathi's point is that it may or may not work, and this fact is uncertain given that the shield has never been tested in a real-world situation where the variables are much more diverse and unpredictable. There is a probability that it could be effective, but going ahead and installing the shield based on that probability is rather foolhardy indeed.

The system has been installed and is operational.
Based on the testing, it was installed and declared operational by people far more in the know than you.
Your complaint here is therefore meaningless.

Quote:

I still say it has more to do with development contracts than it does with actual defense.

Of course you do.