• 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!

He thinks it actually works (Trump on anti-ICBM system)

Lerxst said:
You mad? Because you're acting like your partner, all butthurt and offended.

I neither misinterpreted or misapplied anything. The entire premise of Ozzledense's argument is built out of a strawman he was blindly attacking earlier in the discussion. You internet forum super experts should really go find the people who taught you reading comprehension and kick their asses, because they clearly ripped you off.
Click to expand...

Ignorance and projection.

And insults.

Way to go!

Dumbass trifecta.
 
Lerxst said:
You mad? Because you're acting like your partner, all butthurt and offended.

I neither misinterpreted or misapplied anything. The entire premise of Ozzledense's argument is built out of a strawman he was blindly attacking earlier in the discussion. You internet forum super experts should really go find the people who taught you reading comprehension and kick their asses, because they clearly ripped you off.
Click to expand...

OK, can I stop laughing now?

Funny how you have rejected almost everything I have said in this thread. It really makes me wonder about your ability to reason and communicate rationally.

Suggestion, why don't you go up and google what my name in here is. And I assure you, it is not just something I picked out at random.

So am I an expert in missile defense? Yea, actually I am.

And before and after that I was (and am) an expert in IT. Want me to show my MCSE for Windows NT? Or my NCA for NetWare 3.X? That alone should give an idea how long I have been in this field (I actually entered long before that however).

The problem here is that you are apparently going off of a few random articles, that have little to nothing to do with the point you are actually making. And you are trying to spin that off into something completely different.

Want an idea how closed off some of these systems are?

The PATRIOT missile system is connected to nothing else via computer networking. The RADAR however does link it's signal in a unidirectional way to other air defense and alert systems. This is how a Colonel in Qatar or a General in Washington can monitor the air space battle over Kuwait. But it is purely one-directional. This system sends out information, but does not have any capability to get information back.

On purpose. That way nothing outside can interfere with their firing capability.

And the computers inside of these control vans? There are not even any hard drives in them. The vast majority of it is hard coded via TTL, and what "software" there is loaded is via specially encrypted JAZ drives.

And the command information between the RADAR, control vans and launchers? Fiber Optic Cables.

This is the way such systems are designed, to be bullet proof and idiot proof. You are not gonna "hack them".
 
Fledermaus said:
Your ignorance of things IT and missile related is noted.

I work in the IT field (assisting Cybersecurity pros) so I understand the limitations of hackers. I also dealt with airborne weapons systems in the past so I have a working understanding of the guidance systems.

CLUE: One does not "hack" self-contained systems.

Get off your high horse.... It is really a Shetland pony.
Click to expand...

Hey, smart guy. I, too, work in the "IT field." For a software developer that specifically deals in storing and managing CJI and other sensitive data for the government. You don't impress me. This isn't merely about hacking a network. It's about cultivating HUMINT in combination with technological tools to disrupt the efforts of and possibly prevent an enemy from ever being able to launch a ballistic missile against us. As I have said previously, it's a better investment of our defense dollars and has a better chance of success, than pouring billions into figuring out how to shoot down nuclear warheads that are already in flight. I don't know what part of this is so confusing to you two smart guys.
 
Oozlefinch said:
OK, can I stop laughing now?

Funny how you have rejected almost everything I have said in this thread. It really makes me wonder about your ability to reason and communicate rationally.

Suggestion, why don't you go up and google what my name in here is. And I assure you, it is not just something I picked out at random.

So am I an expert in missile defense? Yea, actually I am.

And before and after that I was (and am) an expert in IT. Want me to show my MCSE for Windows NT? Or my NCA for NetWare 3.X? That alone should give an idea how long I have been in this field (I actually entered long before that however).

The problem here is that you are apparently going off of a few random articles, that have little to nothing to do with the point you are actually making. And you are trying to spin that off into something completely different.

Want an idea how closed off some of these systems are?

The PATRIOT missile system is connected to nothing else via computer networking. The RADAR however does link it's signal in a unidirectional way to other air defense and alert systems. This is how a Colonel in Qatar or a General in Washington can monitor the air space battle over Kuwait. But it is purely one-directional. This system sends out information, but does not have any capability to get information back.

On purpose. That way nothing outside can interfere with their firing capability.

And the computers inside of these control vans? There are not even any hard drives in them. The vast majority of it is hard coded via TTL, and what "software" there is loaded is via specially encrypted JAZ drives.

And the command information between the RADAR, control vans and launchers? Fiber Optic Cables.

This is the way such systems are designed, to be bullet proof and idiot proof. You are not gonna "hack them".
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just try to impress me with a Microsoft software certification? Really? I work with a dozen guys and gals who hold a plethora of software and system certifications. Great, super impressed. And googling your username is going to validate what? That you know how to set up an account on a forum? Come on man, are you being serious?

I think you're getting frustrated, dude. I stand by my original statement, the money is better spent trying to prevent a launch than trying to shoot MIRV's down. If you don't agree, I don't care.
 
Lerxst said:
Hey, smart guy. I, too, work in the "IT field." For a software developer that specifically deals in storing and managing CJI and other sensitive data for the government. You don't impress me. This isn't merely about hacking a network. It's about cultivating HUMINT in combination with technological tools to disrupt the efforts of and possibly prevent an enemy from ever being able to launch a ballistic missile against us. As I have said previously, it's a better investment of our defense dollars and has a better chance of success, than pouring billions into figuring out how to shoot down nuclear warheads that are already in flight. I don't know what part of this is so confusing to you two smart guys.
Click to expand...

I see. So hacking is really about sending Jason Bourne or James Bond in to seduce key people and stop the bad guys.

And if that does not work? Well, that sure sucks, hope you like living in the Fallout universe.

Please pass me some of that roasted Radroach.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I see. So hacking is really about sending Jason Bourne or James Bond in to seduce key people and stop the bad guys.

And if that does not work? Well, that sure sucks, hope you like living in the Fallout universe.

Please pass me some of that roasted Radroach.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're frustrated. "One does not simply challenge Oozlefinch on the internet!"

Ha! Have fun punching your fist. :)
 
Lerxst said:
Did you seriously just try to impress me with a Microsoft software certification? Really? I work with a dozen guys and gals who hold a plethora of software and system certifications. Great, super impressed. And googling your username is going to validate what? That you know how to set up an account on a forum? Come on man, are you being serious?

I think you're getting frustrated, dude. I stand by my original statement, the money is better spent trying to prevent a launch than trying to shoot MIRV's down. If you don't agree, I don't care.
Click to expand...

Was to show how long I have been in the industry. Is not like I built a computer last month and now consider myself an "IT guy". I have been in this field for decades.

OK, let me google my name for you then...

LMGTFY

Or I can just point you to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oozlefinch

The Oozlefinch is the unofficial historic mascot of the Air Defense Artillery – and formerly of the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps. The Oozlefinch is portrayed as a featherless bird that flies backwards (at supersonic speeds) and carries weapons of the Air Defense and Coast Artillery, most often a Nike-Hercules Missile. Oozlefinch has been portrayed in many different forms and artistic interpretations through its history.
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch_LN_Salute_W_Logo_jpg.jpg


That is an Oozlefinch.
 
Lerxst said:
I think you're getting frustrated, dude. I stand by my original statement, the money is better spent trying to prevent a launch than trying to shoot MIRV's down. If you don't agree, I don't care.
Click to expand...

And you may think there are 56 different genders, and I do not care. Your belief has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
 
Lerxst said:
Hey, smart guy. I, too, work in the "IT field."
Click to expand...

<Start Lerxst mode> Call ITT and get your money back. <End Lerxst Mode>

Lerxst said:
For a software developer that specifically deals in storing and managing CJI and other sensitive data for the government. You don't impress me.
Click to expand...

Methinks "storing and managing CJI" falls a few steps under being sole administrator of a DITSCAP/DIACAP (Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process) certified/accredited network. I could be wrong. When was your last annual DIACAP security check?

Lerxst said:
This isn't merely about hacking a network.
Click to expand...

Good, since you failed at explaining yourself on that subject.

Lerxst said:
It's about cultivating HUMINT in combination with technological tools to disrupt the efforts of and possibly prevent an enemy from ever being able to launch a ballistic missile against us.
Click to expand...

HUMINT in North Korea. Good luck with that. Ditto China.

So explain what technological tools you imagine us using. Command and Control interruption? Simple enclosed systems can defeat that. Simple land lines and couriers can defeat that.

Lerxst said:
As I have said previously, it's a better investment of our defense dollars and has a better chance of success, than pouring billions into figuring out how to shoot down nuclear warheads that are already in flight.
Click to expand...

Because you have ZERO certainty that these nebulous ploys will pay out at this point.

Lerxst said:
I don't know what part of this is so confusing to you two smart guys.
Click to expand...

Your insistence on nebulous and unproven tech that MIGHT be developed in the future to nebulously interfere with the launch of missiles in a land where simple sound powered phones, land lines and a gajillion couriers await....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom