Ext User(stork@storkyak.com)
09-03-2006, 02:23 PM
Stork replied to:
>Spoken like a true Einstein
Well, I suppose he was as smart as I am!
>I have no idea how someone who can't provide a single shred of proof as to the
>viability of the BMD system
Jack Kennedy is rolling over in his grave.
My how Democrats have lost all of their vision.
Christ, the atomic bomb, the h-bomb, and putting a man on the moon was
your party's biggest accomplishments, not to mention the little ones
like figuring out how to stop u-boats, break german codes (and all the
attendant advances in mathematics that came of it), and now, you shrink
from every major technical challenge put before you. Oh, and by the
way, Democrats also eradicated smallpox from the planet. But,
intercept a missile in flight, jeez, that's too hard.
Liberals: a bunch of pussies these days.
>while Vladimir Putin has already stated that the Russians
>(and soon everyone else) has the technology to evade such a system and render
>it useless.
Nothing is free in engineering and "useless" is too strong a word. In
order for Putin's missile to be both fast and maneuverable, it has to
have a f--- load of fuel and will be heavy as hell to survive the
aerodynamic loading of all that steering around. As it is, I don't
think his missile has a range of more than one or two hundred miles -
its not a strategic weapon.
>Besides, it's a waste of effort considering the alternatives for delivering a
>nuclear weapon which are far lower technology while being far easier at the
>same time.
Not at all. You intercept a ship, search for radiation on roads, etc,
and generally interdict a smuggled nuclear weapon. In order for you to
adequately lead line a nuke so that it doesn't produce any detectable
emissions, you really wouldn't be able to move it. On the other hand,
if we get one nuke into a city, well, that's a million dead, at least,
plus, all the other crap that goes with it. BMD is worth the risk,
even a 5% chance of saving a million people is worth taking.
In any case, the NMD system to which you refer is actually one of
several layers in the overall BMD strategy. The Aegis system that is
being extended to be a first tier boost phase / theater system is
already build on proven technology. The ABL going on top of the 747 to
shoot at missiles in the air has had several tests. The Israeli - USA
based ARROW laser interception system has actually intercepted missiles
in flight, along with mortars and artillery rounds. Overall, there are
a great many advances being made in the field, and a few failed tests
of one specific program means nothing.
In science, there is no such thing as failure, only learning, and I
have every faith that the USA can build this thing.
>Spoken like a true Einstein
Well, I suppose he was as smart as I am!
>I have no idea how someone who can't provide a single shred of proof as to the
>viability of the BMD system
Jack Kennedy is rolling over in his grave.
My how Democrats have lost all of their vision.
Christ, the atomic bomb, the h-bomb, and putting a man on the moon was
your party's biggest accomplishments, not to mention the little ones
like figuring out how to stop u-boats, break german codes (and all the
attendant advances in mathematics that came of it), and now, you shrink
from every major technical challenge put before you. Oh, and by the
way, Democrats also eradicated smallpox from the planet. But,
intercept a missile in flight, jeez, that's too hard.
Liberals: a bunch of pussies these days.
>while Vladimir Putin has already stated that the Russians
>(and soon everyone else) has the technology to evade such a system and render
>it useless.
Nothing is free in engineering and "useless" is too strong a word. In
order for Putin's missile to be both fast and maneuverable, it has to
have a f--- load of fuel and will be heavy as hell to survive the
aerodynamic loading of all that steering around. As it is, I don't
think his missile has a range of more than one or two hundred miles -
its not a strategic weapon.
>Besides, it's a waste of effort considering the alternatives for delivering a
>nuclear weapon which are far lower technology while being far easier at the
>same time.
Not at all. You intercept a ship, search for radiation on roads, etc,
and generally interdict a smuggled nuclear weapon. In order for you to
adequately lead line a nuke so that it doesn't produce any detectable
emissions, you really wouldn't be able to move it. On the other hand,
if we get one nuke into a city, well, that's a million dead, at least,
plus, all the other crap that goes with it. BMD is worth the risk,
even a 5% chance of saving a million people is worth taking.
In any case, the NMD system to which you refer is actually one of
several layers in the overall BMD strategy. The Aegis system that is
being extended to be a first tier boost phase / theater system is
already build on proven technology. The ABL going on top of the 747 to
shoot at missiles in the air has had several tests. The Israeli - USA
based ARROW laser interception system has actually intercepted missiles
in flight, along with mortars and artillery rounds. Overall, there are
a great many advances being made in the field, and a few failed tests
of one specific program means nothing.
In science, there is no such thing as failure, only learning, and I
have every faith that the USA can build this thing.