posted
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
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.
------------------ 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
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
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.
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.
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.
------------------ 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'
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.
------------------ 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?
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]
posted
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.
posted
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?
------------------ 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
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.
------------------ 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?
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]
posted
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.
------------------ 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
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.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
