Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Best Missile Defense: MAD or Star Wars?

This is topic Best Missile Defense: MAD or Star Wars? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/634.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Isn't it pretty clear that STAR WARS Missile Defense doesn't work?

Last summer, the Star Wars system failed again -- $100 million was spent so that one missile could try and shoot down another. The rocket carrying the intercept missile didn't deploy, and ::flush:: went the toilet.

Fifty Nobel Prize winners (21 of the Nobel Prize in Physics) have written to this nations' leaders, asking them to abandon national missile defense. They say it won't work. If we do try this, both Russia and China will embark on an arms race to overwhelm our missile defense.

Big issue: countermeasures. How our enemies could defeat Star Wars. Guess what? It can be done by decoys! Place a warhead inside a Mylar balloon and launch a hundred of decoy balloons. So far, the system can't discriminate against live and decoy targets.

What is wrong with deterrence? Our advesaries have had nuclear weaponry for 50 years, and they've never attacked. We've never had "Star Wars." Why haven't they attacked? They've been afraid of the response -- massive retaliation, suicide for small countries, Mutual Assured Destruction for a superpower. This system has kept the peace for two centuries, let's not try and go with something that wouldn't work.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Or worse yet, stop promoting a system that may end up with the end of the world.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :

Silly primitive nuclear weapons. Once my weather machine is working, i'll lay waste to my enemies with hurricanes! mwhahahahahahahahahahaha, let's see you shoot down a storm with a missile.

------------------
"Life sucks, then you die"

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :

Of course Star Wars wouldn't work. I was taught in college history class that it wouldn't work. Logistically, you can't create an impenetrable shield around the Earth via "killer" satellites that would instantaneously destroy all nuclear missiles launched. It ain't gonna happen.

I still wonder to this day if Reagan actually believed that it would work, or if it was just an overblown and overspent way of reassuring the public that the U.S. would survive and be victorious in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Of course, that wouldn't happen either. Just watch "The Day After."

------------------
Star Trek: Legacy

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Somebody set up us the Star Wars?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

All your 'That's no moon...It's a base' are belong to us.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

This is a very complex issue, and to examine it properly I think we need to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

MAD pros: Satire of popular films and television shows of the day. Occasionally humorous cartoons.

MAD cons: Lame.

Star Wars pros: Nice score. Fun effects.

Star Wars cons: Written entirely by lemurs.

I think the obvious solution would be some sort of combination of the two, with special emphasis on the Mad side of the equation. Now, while I was too young to experience the Mad version of Star Wars, if their send up of the Star Trek (Star Wreck, Star Blech, etc.) family is anything to go by, those Russians had better watch out. Once they read a comic strip depicting their favorite telelvision show as "Who Wants to Eat Dinner?", they will become too demoralized to launch a strike against us, nuclear or otherwise.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I still wonder to this day if Reagan actually believed that it would work, or if it was just an overblown and overspent way of reassuring the public that the U.S. would survive and be victorious in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union

A third possibility is that he was using it to convince RUSSIA that we'd survive in a nuclear war. Another factor in their spending themselves into oblivion.

Socialist economies simply can not support arms races. Let China build up its weapons. They'll simply destroy themselves, like the USSR did.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Why, out of curiousity, did you capitalize Russia? At the time, it was the USSR. Just wondering.

Star Wars is bad. MAD is good. Well, MAD is mad, but Star Wars is just plain insane.

Maybe Reagan would've had 'em convinced if he actually got Star Wars working, but as its unworkable and impossible to get to work, I doubt the Soviets ever believed that we'd all survive. You know, that's the thing about MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 19, 2001).]

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Star War is not as simple as you think, it's not only about projectile interception, it's also about global intel and early satellite warning and detection.

As for the interception of enemy ICBMs, projectiles are one of the low tech methods in the entire system, US military have effectively developed and demonstrate the ability to intercept using laser, plasma cannons, etc and plan to intergrate them into the Star War project.

And yes, the identification of decoys are also part of the main objective of Star War project. US miliary now has the ability to detect low radiation coming from the MIRV warheads, therefore effectively target the real one from the fakes.

And further more, Star War project have real life application, the technologies that's been developed have also help the advance in various technologies which we use in our everyday life.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

MAKE THE REDS CHOKE ON THE BOMB! SUCK IT DOWN KRUSCHEV!

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

quote:
Socialist economies simply can not support arms races. Let China build up its weapons. They'll simply destroy themselves, like the USSR did.

Cocky? Oh, yes...

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Gee, well, since Star Wars currently can't tell between live weapons and decoys, lets hope they just don't fire a shit-load of decoys and mix a real nuke or two in with 'em.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

A few things:

1. The USSR did not spend itself into oblivion trying to match the US's SDI development budget. The US themselves haven't really spent that much developing it. SDI's crucial contribution to the collapse of the USSR was that merely keeping up their side of the MAD threat was enough to bring them to the verge of bankruptcy. In the end, they could either attack before the US became invulnerable, or they could just give up.

2. I've noticed that it's ALWAYS the USSR or China who are assumed to be the ones who'll start a nuclear war, never America. Why? Both of them have/had far superior conventional forces (numbers-wise, anyway). These are/were socialist nations, they wanted conquest, introduction of the capitalists into the socialist paradise, resources. All we capitalists wanted was to sell them stuff. We were the ones saying "better dead than Red." And I don't know why I'm saying "we" anyway, the rest of NATO was never gonna have any say in the decision to go nuclear - no wonder a common feature in WWIII fiction is America's abandonment by her allies. . .

3. The only nuclear attack you're likely to suffer is a terrorist one. You gonna particle-beam Arab immigrants from orbit?

Anyway. SDI is a pipe dream - to be able to accurately plot thousands of incoming targets with multiple vectors, velocities, orbits, then sort out which ones are dummies (and what do you do with them? A dummy baliistic missile is still going to make a hell of a bang when it hits; assign it a lower priority in the threat assessment/target schedule?), then match all interdiction resources with targets, then coordinate a successful rendezvous for each? And how are they going to sell this to the American people, given 100% coverage may not be possible for years, and priority protection is given to strategic targets (cities, military bases, areas which vote Republican and are rich)?

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

Why, out of curiousity, did you capitalize Russia?

Emphasis. Russia, as opposed to the American people. I keep forgetting about italics.

Lee:

In the end, they could either attack before the US became invulnerable, or they could just give up.

Funny thing, though. I seem to recall that we offered to share the frikin' thing with them, and they refused.

no wonder a common feature in WWIII fiction is America's abandonment by her allies. . .

You ought to read more Clancy. "Red Storm Rising" rocks. And we (NATO) kick the snot out of Soviet Russia.

Read "The Sum of All Fears" while you're at it. Good insight into MAD.

I also notice something about the concept of a dummy rocket: if the rocket was going to hit the US, it would have to be headed here in the first place. Thus it would have to be installed on an ICBM. The problem there is that ICBM maintanence is one of the most expensive components of any arms race. Those Russian weapons probably wouldn't even fire if they wanted them to, due to lack of maintanence funding. Yes, building the nuke in the first place would cost a large amount of money, but getting that many decoys ready, and keeping them so, would cost far more. Their economy would colapse before they could launch.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

To be honest, the best missile defense would be fragging the other guy's launchers BEFORE they have a chance to launch.

Now, since a ICBM strike would give an enemy FAR too much time to see it coming, that wouldn't work. BUT, a SPACE-based first strike capability... would cut that time by over half. There'd be no plume to alert the enemy of your launch. There'd be less than half the cruise time, less ballistic time, no boost phase, less time to intercept... and with the proper materials, no need for nuclear payloads. Drop a boxcar-sized rock on, Tehran, for example, and you'd be left with a mile-wide crater and a far-reaching circle of devastation.

However, our need for defense is now much greater against smuggled 'pocket nukes' than it is against ballistic missiles. And the only really efective way to defend against that is to eliminate all the sorts of groups that might pose such a threat.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Can someone please explain to me the operational concept of a mini-nuke? As I understand nuclear weaponry, there should be no way that one would fit in a briefcase. So... how do they?

I like your idea, Rob. The only problem would come if the nuclear salvo was the opening shot in a war, and you thus had no warning at all. But still, I like the idea. 'Course, you'd have to know where all the launchers were, and you'd also have to take out all missile-carrying subs (of which China has, what, one?) by other means, but still, it's worth the money to have that kind of advantage.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Decoys don't neccessarily have to be on a rocket. Although, it should be noted that we tried a test ... tried to shoot down one missile with another. It cost $100 million ... and the rocket failed to deploy. Bye-bye-tax payers money!!!

A warhead could be placed in, for example, a Mylar balloon. Hundreds of decoy balloons could then be launched to cover the one with an actual warhead. The system is thus far unable to figure out the difference between a live target and a decoy.

Another problem is that rogue states may be more likely to fire short-range missiles, which are easier for them to develop and deploy, and which the proposed national missile defense can't stop.

Oh, yeah, and 50 Nobel Prize winners (21-in physics) say it won't work, but it will be destablilizing, and Russia and China will embark on an arms race to overwhelm our missile defense.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Another problem is that rogue states may be more likely to fire short-range missiles, which are easier for them to develop and deploy, and which the proposed national missile defense can't stop.

And which can't reach us.

Russia and China will embark on an arms race to overwhelm our missile defense.

Good. Let them destroy themselves.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

A Mylar balloon?

*must...stop...chuckling...*

What if the wind changes?
Yeah, I can see it now. Iran launches a nuke on a mylar balloon, meant for the U.S. Three days later, a shift in weather patterns and a storm bring the nuke down on Leningrad. Russia begins a diligent search, finds out the Iranians were to blame, because SOMEBODY is gonna let it slip that they goofed, ... and vaporizes Tehran.

How much helium do you need to lift a pocket nuke?

This sounds like the old saw about how you could make a missile invulnerable by polishing it or spinning it, neither of which would work against a high-end laser OR a kinetic weapon.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Cuba couldn't reach us, Omega?

You're willing to bet a nuclear holocaust on the WIND, First?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Not without committing suicide.
Are you saying Castro's insane?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Exactly my point.

The only reason no one has attacked the US is because of MAD in cases of other superpowers, and because for smaller nations -- like Cuba -- it's called "suicide."

Star Wars is a waste of money.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Except that, in the case of using it to intercept a first strike, it might allow us to be able to reduce our nuclear arsenal so we didn't need to have enough bombs to destroy the planet six times over, just in case somebody else's first strike got to some of our silos first.

Liberals are supposed to be in favor of less nukes, and AGAINST M.A.D., right?

After all, Self-annihilation and failure is even less appealing than mutual destruction, even to the fanatics, right?

If WE have a missile defense, and they (generic 'they') don't, then our chances of surviving with our retaliatory capacity intact after their first strike are far greater than their own. Then we'd need to declare a "no first use" policy (which I don't think we've done yet, but we should, to gain a moral high ground,).

This would, in effect, lower our risk while increasing the other guy's, so that ALL nuclear attacks against the US would be seen in the same category as that of Cuba's: Suicide.

(Plus, if we control the space areas thoroughly enough, we could, theoretically, *ahem* 'prevent' anybody else from building a similar construct, thus assuring permanent preeminence. If we really HAD to.)

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Liberals are FOR effective deterents to nuclear holocaust, as I would imagine everyone is.

First, you're making the assumption that Star Wars would work. We tried shooting down one missile with another. The test failed -- the rocket carrying the interceptor missile failed to deploy properly, and POOF! we're out 100 million.

Hey, if it could actually work, fine, that would be fine.

But,

Couple that with Bush's willingness for a unilateral reduction in our nuclear arsenal, and what we've got is ...

a) a missile defense that doesn't work

b) no threat (from us) of MAD.

That's bad.

Plus, when 50 Nobel Peace Prize winners (21 of those in Physics, if I hadn't mentioned that before) say Star Wars is a bad idea that can't work, I'd tend to listen to them.

Star Wars = Very Bad

MAD = Very Bad (but, on the other hand, has prevented a nuclear war for 50 years)

We've got a choice between two evils, ladies and germs. Star Wars is supremely expensive -- I don't even know why Bill Clinton started talking about it a year or so ago -- and has not yet worked. It has not yet been able to differentiate between decoy and live targets. It does not work. Bad idea. No good. Give it up.

We're stuck with MAD.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

By this logic, Edison should have given up after the fifth time his attempt to make a working lightbulb failed, rather than going through some, what was it, 500 attempts?

Nobody suggesting putting the CURRENT system in place AS IS, that would be NUTS. But developing it until it DOEs work, that's pragmatic.

As for Nobel Scientists, that's all well and good.
However, I might remind you of one of Isaac Asimov's less-famous Universal Truths:

"If a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is very probably right. If, however, he says that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Everyone's all talking about two bit "threats" like Cuba, when the real threat involving Nuclear Weapondry and/or WMD is the third point which Lee pointed out:

quote:
3. The only nuclear attack you're likely to suffer is a terrorist one. You gonna particle-beam Arab immigrants from orbit?

Now, apart from the racist Arab stereotype, this is the real point.

No superpower, or even a country that found a bomb in their shed is stupid enough to start anything Nuclear with the US. (I say US not because you're the penultimate 'Good Guy', which you're not, but because you're the only 'good' country emphatic about your nukes.)

The term Mutually Assured Destruction is presumably translated into Russian, Farsi, Chinese and perhaps Mandarin. If not, "majorly bad fucking idea" is. Despit how "INSANE" & "CRAZY, BECAUSE HE'S NOT LIKE US!" & "BAD! NOT CONSTITUTION-BASED!" Some countries and leaders are, very few, if any are morons. You don't become the most powerful man in your country by being stupid.

So what does that leave? Terrorists, really. And not just "Arab Immigrants" either. Timothy McVeigh used a ryder truck. What's the next organized (God thank the fact that none have yet been able to be anything than a group fo 4 angry trailer park truck drivers angry at taxes) going to use? Any terrorist group with enough organization & financial support can get their hands on any type of MWD they fancy. Apparently 'Security' & 'Nuclear' never figure into the same sentence.

There are more than enough stories of Missing Russian, Chinese and American nuclear weapons, that one has to figure that if a terrorist operation really wanted one, they could probably get their hands on one.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Suit case nukes are possible.

All you need is enough mass of radiactive materials, like uranium to reach critical mass, which is a little bit bigger then a average softball.

Then you wrapped high explosive in the right geometry around the ball-shaped uranium. The high explosive create enough force for the uranium atom to come close enough for "Strong Nuclear Force" to takeover.

Mind you it's not that easy to obtain radioactive materials. And the design of the explosve have to be exactly right. But for high tech country like US, Russia or China who already possess the knowledge for nuclear weapon, it's not really a big problem.

Then you got yourself an bomb that can wipe out 5-10 block radius.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Which is why we should be working harder to eliminate that threat.

And then, of course, there's the awful possibility that we could just let it be known that we'll frag any foreign state that aids and abets any terrorist group that ends up using a nuke against us.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Those 'How to make nuclear bombs' pages on Anarchist website are closer to a recipe for pudding than a design for a working atomic device.

The faults, and 'uuh...wtf?'s of this suitcase nuke "plan" you've outlined are, well, a lot. It'd be easier to try and lift a really fat dude who ate like, a lot of pizza, and smelled like feet with your teeth over a flaming sea of mercury while standing on a 1" square of styrofoam, naked. With a mouse trap attatched to your genitals.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

It seems to me that privately backed terrorism wouldn't be scared of your deterrent, First.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

And why are you guys still fixing on the decoys, I already explain before how they can detect small radioactive trace from the REAL warhead.

And no offense, ballon decoys sounds kinda dumb. Why do countries keep on building newer and newer ICBMS, they want better precision and accuracy. I don't think we have the technologies to control the path of a ballon. And if the ballon are just wondering in the air aiming for targets of real values, I think the Russian or the US know that they're fakes. Beside, what made you think that ballon won't fall on your own face first?

Of course, Star War is still a dream in the current stage of development, but from an military perspective, an early start is always good, I mean sooner or later, warfare are going to be taking into space, why not have a head start?

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

ULTRA MAGNUS PRESENTS:

the missing line from 'Zero Wing'

warfare are going to be taking into space

Order your special edition today featuring never-before-seen clips like:

CAPTAIN: WHAT HAPPEN?
MECHANIC: SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB.
CAPTAIN: WARFARE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING INTO SPACE!
OPERATOR: WE GET SIGNAL.

Now, you and your family can enjoy hours of entertainment with this special edition of the World Famous 'Zero Wing' Movie.

Call us at TIME LIFE at the following number:

1-800-ALL-BASE

SOMEBODY SET UP OPERATORS THE STANDING BY!

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Gee, let's see, we've been throwing money at Star Wars off and on since 1983 ... I'd say it's time to give it up.

The US spent more money and time on Star Wars then on the Manhattan Project and the ICBM program combined.

It's not going to work.

And the Nobel Scientists didn't say it was "impossible." Just a very (very, very, very) bad idea, because then the Russians and the Chinese would begin an arms race to make enough nukes to overwhelm the system.

Balance of power is the key word here.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

We used fight over land with swards, spears, etc. Later on we used guns, cannons and tanks.

The imperial powers dominated the oceans with massive destroyers, cruisers and frigates in the 19th to early 20th century.

Now air superiority are said to be the most important factor of winning the war.

So yes, we will most definately be fighting in space, whether you don't like it, or you don't believe it. Why? Because man has manage to make war on EVERY SINGLE TERRAIN he came across, and once we have the technologies for space travel in a massive scale, then we will come up with weapons that is designed for space simply because we can.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

We tried shooting down one missile with another. The test failed -- the rocket carrying the interceptor missile failed to deploy properly, and POOF! we're out 100 million.

You base the merit of an entire project on a single bug in a single missile? If reproducing your results may be a problem, conduct the experiment only once?

Couple that with Bush's willingness for a unilateral reduction in our nuclear arsenal, and what we've got is ...

a) a missile defense that doesn't work

b) no threat (from us) of MAD.

a) You base this on nothing.

b) MAD still works as a deterrent. Who cares about the fact that we can only blow up the world four times now?

Plus, when 50 Nobel Peace Prize winners (21 of those in Physics, if I hadn't mentioned that before) say Star Wars is a bad idea that can't work, I'd tend to listen to them.

Appeal to authority is a classic logical falicy.

Gee, let's see, we've been throwing money at Star Wars off and on since 1983 ... I'd say it's time to give it up.

We've been pouring money into inner cities since the sixties, with no results. Should we give that up, too? Perhaps we should just fix it.

So let me get this straight. Your physics professors are commenting on world politics?

Balance of power is the key word here.

That's three words. It's also a bad thing. We don't WANT a balance, because that can start a war. Remember "The Sum of All Fears"? We need to be as close to invunerable as possible. Then no one will touch us, because our chances of survival would be higher, and thus their chances of destruction increase. As it stands, it's at least theoretically possible for Russia or China to take out all our nukes with one salvo. And before you ask, we couldn't return fire before they impacted. You can thank Bill for that.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

We've been pouring money into inner cities since the sixties, with no results. Should we give that up, too? Perhaps we should just fix it.

The two situations are hardly alike. MAD works. Star Wars is costing a bundle to try to get to work. We've already got a great system that works, why try to replace it? It's not ... logical?

Yes, exactly, MAD works, let's leave it at that. The problem is, Bush wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal and give us a missile system that is failing every test put to it.

I'd rather keep the way we've currently got. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You base this on nothing

I base this on the fact that it does not now and in the past has not worked.

MAD still works as a deterent.

**DEEP SIGH**

Did you read what I posted? Bush wants to use Star Wars as a national defense, while unilaterally reducing the number of missiles we have, so, no, we won't have the ability to assure anyone else's destruction.

But, I completely agree with you otherwise. MAD works. Why replace it? Don't fix what ain't broke. Etc.

Your physics professors are commenting on world politics?

Honestly, they're not my physics professors. What would I do with a physics professor? Besides trying to nuke Texas off the face of the Earth, I mean. Well, maybe if she looked like Christmas Jones ...

Seriously, only 21 out of 50 of them were Nobel winners of the award in physics. Unless you're suggesting you're smarter and more knowledgeable than fifty Nobel laureates? Actually, the idea that Russia and China would need to build more missiles to overwhelm Star Wars to maintain the balance of power seems quite logical (I mean, otherwise, what would keep us from nuking 'em off the face of the planet at no risk to ourselves?)

Honestly, how many times do I have to say this? Please read what I'm posting. Thank you.

In summary:

MAD works.

Star Wars doesn't.

Let's keep MAD. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Omega: You claim that 'appealing to authority' is a classic illogical maneuvre. While I don't disagree with this statement, I would say that your recent 'Tom Clancy' novel references are probably just as invalid.

Remember, Tom Clancy is an author. Therefore, he is in the business of entertainment. Dramatic licence is indeed an invaluable part of his work. I don't recall his doctorate in political science.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Not to mention Nobel price winners in PHYSICS probably know nothing about ENGINEERING!

and I do think when building satellites, space shuttle, etc, enginnerring and designs are probably more important then fundimental physics.

I wouldn't put too much credit on those Physic professors if I were you

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Bush wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal and give us a missile system that is failing every test put to it.

All... *counts* ...one of them?

MAD works

Yes, and if it ever STOPS working, we all die. All it'd take for it to stop working is for an insane man to obtain power in Russia or China, and there's nothing to stop that. Unacceptable.

while unilaterally reducing the number of missiles we have, so, no, we won't have the ability to assure anyone else's destruction.

He doesn't want to reduce the numbers THAT much. Why would we need the arsenal to blow up the world half a dozen times if missiles are less likely to get through and destroy ours? Heck, even without that, why do we need that many?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The only foolproof missile defense, of course, is to not be on the planet when they're launched.

At any rate, I can't let this chance for cracking wise pass me by. As regards Clancy: I prefer porn that features naked people touching each other.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

MAD has prevented a nuclear war for 50+ years. 100% reliability.

STAR WARS has failed every test put to it. It can't determine between decoy and live targets. It can't properly shoot missiles down, and it's a drain of national resources. 100% un-reliability.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

It can't determine between decoy and live targets.

It can, as BE has pointed out several times.

It can't properly shoot missiles down

You base this on a single test, and on a glitch that had nothing to do with the concept of SDI itself.

Your argument is flawed.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

I don't know what president Bush said(and president do make mistake when it comes to announcing national defense plans), but any military expert will tell you that Star War is still a "WORK-IN-PROGRESS".

I don't recall anyone ever said that it is perfect as it is in the current stage.

Why does it take so long? Look at the F-22 "rapter" for example, the idea for ATF(the project for F-22) started out way early in the 80s. If it takes 20 odd years for an airplane to be developed, imagine how long it's going to take for a project as complex as Star War.

Is it worth it? Sure it cost a lot, but if I am a country like US who wants to maintain a global military superiority, of course I want a head start in the space arm race before anyone else. And don't tell me there's not such a thing as space arm race, because it started every since the first spy satellite was launched into space!

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

P.S.

When I said past president made mistakes, well they do.

here is an example:

I'm sure you've all heard of the famous "black bird" by the lockhead "skunk factory"

the offical destination for the black bird should be "RS 71", RS stands for "Reconnaissance and Surveillance", but president Reigan mistaken it for "Strategic Reconnaissance", hence the "SR 71"

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Um...I know little about these things, and so I am quite possibly wrong, but I was under the impression that Reagan was not president at the time.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

Well, I'm sure one of the president made that mistake, but I could be wrong on which on of the presidents.

Could it be Carter?

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Could have been Nixon. Or even Johnson, the plane is actually that old.

I'd like to mention that I was probably reading Clancy while most of you were still puzzling over the intricacies of Dr. Seuss, and I'm aware that Red Storm Rising doesn't have those evil foreigners abandoning the US in her moment of need. Hence my saying a common feature instead of a universal one. I'd also like to point out that Clancy's always had a faintly naive view of the world. I greatly enjoyed reading his books, but I'm not going to use them as the basis for any sort of worldview or to form an opinion on global politics.

Furthermore, by mentioning Arab immigrants, it wasn't my intention to foster any sort of stereotype. Simple fact is, certain Middle-Eastern nations have a large proportion of people who would actively endorse a terrorist nuclear attack, and could bring the resources of said nations to bear on such a project. And what are you going to do if threatened by insurgents who (ostensibly - remember that they are Caucasians and many would not stand out as what we call 'Arabs') belong to a particular ethnic group? Watch The Siege for an idea of the problems and the kind of solutions that might emerge - but don't take it any seriouser than Clancy.

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I still don't understand the Clancy = Porn comment.

What Happen? Somebody set up us the confusion.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Some clarification.

1)I believe NMD has been tested three times and has failed twice.

2)I'm taking an informal logic course right now. Seeing as we're arguing aout fallacies and such, it is a fallacy to make a fallacious appeal to authority, (ie) the authority as put forward isn't one. Now, its something of a fuzzy area what comprises an authority, but one must generally be a recognized expert in a discrete field.

Tom Clancy isn't an expert in the field in question. He writes fictional literature based on his own limited knowledge of highly classified data, within the constraints of drama. He's no more qualified to endorse this system than Chris Gough is to tell you how to align dilithium crystals in a Klingon warp core.

The Nobel Laureates are another matter. Internationally acclaimed intellectuals are generally the best possible authorities through most conventions in informal logic. The most important thing is that their field of expertise is the field in question. I'll concede that a Physics Laureateship(?) isn't a perfect fit with space-based nuclear weaponry as a field of knowledge. They are, however, probably the closest thing to a body of experts you're gonna get short of actual professors who've wrote theses on the things. (Which, incidentally, there are no shortage of, and most of them are anti-NMD, but that's only so far as I've seen)

Anyway, I don't think I'll join in to this wholesale because
a)I think everyone can guess which side I'll take
b)Most of my points are being articulated anyway.

Cheers,
Tom

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively