As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

[The Vagabond]

Missile Shield is a natural next step to undertake. It marks the continuing progress in weapon systems. And, as you know, progress can't be stopped. So it is the right thing to do. Besides, such a grandiose project always leads to a number of useful by-products. It might well be that the sum of by-products would eventually result more important than the original goal itself. Too bad, Russia is not quite in a position to compete in this.

What I don't like here is how this idea is sold to the public. Are the traditional BS interpretations, such as a threat from the rogue states blah blah, the only ones that would work with the public?

[chequita guevara]

How many weapons systems do you use that are known to be unusable? This isn't about development, it's about deployment.

[The Vagabond]

Deployment seems to be a little bit premature at this moment. But development is the right thing to do.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by mindseye

Flaw One: Delivery Time
If delivery time is that important, the weapon could easily be pre-positioned. It could be sitting in a foreign-registered prop plane on a small Mexican airfield, or in the hold of a small cargo ship anchored just outside Boston harbor. This kind of delivery option is still far cheaper and easier - by orders of magnitude - than developing, deploying and maintaining intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Flaw Two: Anonymity
If they really do want to claim credit, there are very easy fool-proof ways to do it (e.g. alerting the US five minutes before detonation, a pre-dated communication, etc).

Finally, I disagree with your contention about "the whole point of having a nuclear device". A nuclear attack on the US would provide an American leader with carte blanche for whatever retaliation was desired. What leader would expect to survive vaporizing Los Angeles?

If the US really did need to threaten a nation in a manner so extreme as to give cause to that nation to contemplate a nucear attack on the US (with all the ensuing consequences), that extreme threat could easily include pre-emptively disabling the nation's tiny nuclear arsenal (remember, it must be a very small arsenal or it could overwhelm the "shield" anyway).

Any other flaws?

Again, if that is in fact the case, why are they bothering to develop them, and why are they throwing such a fit over our missle defense?

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, the most likely target for a nuclear strike in wartime is not the first available U.s. City, but rather the first available U.S. Carrier Task Force.

[Whoha]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The thing about planes is, they need to land. Modern planes need certain rair places to land.

The thing about boats is, they need a harbor to come in. Adequate facilities need to be constructed, the docks need to be staffed,etc. Both Airports and Sea Ports are easily constructed.

Our borders are 3000 miles long, and we have never made an attempt to guard them. A great deal of the terrain is not exactly the kind of terrain you will be able to walk through, as the case with the Mexicans suing us for not putting water along their path...

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

Originally posted by Whoha
The thing about boats is, they need a harbor to come in. Adequate facilities need to be constructed, the docks need to be staffed,etc. Both Airports and Sea Ports are easily constructed.

It's far, far easier to get a boat undetected into the U.S. than it is a plane, especially one which could carry a nuclear weapon. Boats can just come near land, go up rivers, sail into a port and tie up at a private dock.

The border has to be longer than 3,000 miles. It's 3000 miles from East to West just driving. Then you've got the Canadian border, Alaska, and the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

On the net I found "The land borders between Canada, Mexico and the United States amount to 5317 miles in total length excluding the Alaska/Canada border."

http://www.usbc.org/profiles/profiles2003/1103secureborders.htm

[Whoha]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/sosus.htm

Still, the Fishing boat of doom needs to be carried across the ocean to the US, and since ships will only be allowed to approach a few remote docks, that makes the job of finding ships that much easier.

As for the borders, like I've said, every time we tried, various interests ran in to shut down any attempt.We can cut the border down to size by just saying that large portions of it are off limits, and we have a great deal of buffer zone to work with. This does not eliminate trade or immigration.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Are you saying that Kim will risk a war with the U.S. if there is a 95% chance of his ace in the hole being a deuce?

It's not about what we think -- it's about what they think.

...and when I see that a lot of people who don't like us are having fits about us "wasting money" on a "dead end" (which, ultimately, leaves us, an opponent, weaker), I have to wonder why.

I don't foresee Kim declaring war on the US anytime soon.

However, it seems likely to me that he wants to keep his comfy little dictatorship intact and is mighty concerned that at some time he will get hammered by the US as a part of the "Axis of Evil" campaign.

And that's why he wants nukes... Nobody f***s with a nuclear power. From US perspective, if his chances of successfully hitting US with his single nuke is 5% instead of 75%, it is not going to make any difference - an offensive action against NK is completely out.
That's what Kim wants.

When Reagan started the whole Star Wars shebang, things were different. Basically, if one has to consider a possibility of a total nuclear war, then 95% success rate against incoming missiles sounds pretty damn good. If, however, we are talking a rogue state single action, 95% or 5% does not make any difference.

And 100% successful system is plain vanilla impossible. Look at the track record for Patriot missiles during the last Iraqi war - they interception rate was somewhere around 40-60%.

That's why deployment of a missile shield is effectively an anti-Russian move despite all US administration claims to the contrary - it won't stop rogue states but, if successful, it will devaluate Russian nuclear arsenal somewhat.

I however, don't think that a missile shield is technologically possible... Well, it's a matter of definitions. I believe that it is possible to get workable ICBM interceptors; I, however, don't believe that it can have higher than 50% success rate given current technology. And at 50% efficiency it is essentially useless.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Whoha


about the only thing that we need to import is oil, for now. Now as I stated, my plan isn't to end all trade, it is to have all goods come into a few remote ports, and from there have intra-US deliverers send it to whatever wallmart its headed to.

Tin is than very useful metal that is alloy to other metal to make usefull thing like the metal we use to make election contention stay together with each other. Your hateful plan will never work you just want to isolate the america people from idear like Islam is than peaceful religion which will lead to than world government as the UN is only than temp stop on the way to than world government.

[Dis]

yep, I've been saying this all along. I've always said wait until we have the technology before we go with this.

Yes there is the saying, necessity is the mother of invention (or something like that).

While things like the manhatten project have went pretty smoothly, I'm wary of the goverment leading the way developing technology. yes I realize they are using private companies, but the goverment is setting the standards, which are unreasonable at this time.

I still believe in MAD. If it's a rogue nation, we destroy that nation. Simple really.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Again, if that is in fact the case, why are they bothering to develop them, and why are they throwing such a fit over our missle defense?

Could you clarify your question? Like who are "they" and "them."

[CharlesBHoff]

We allready went thought something like this in the 15th cenurty. There was plate armour for chest than back which was than 1 1/2 to 2 inches thich with heavey 1 inch thick plate covering the rest of your body with than heavy helmet with very tiny slits in it to see out and to breach thought. It was very heavy, hot whileing it in hot climate than cold when wearing it in cold climate. It was hard to see your total surrounding due to the tiny slit you have to see thought. The wealthly knight in England have than total income of 50 dollar ayear than this armour cost 10,000 dollar to buy.

In afew year the gun became so powerful that they penerate this armous easy and able to penerate thich armour than this. This when the isear of wearing heavy armous die out. Mass formation of gunman where use in big battle where regimentals fought it out. It 5 king musketeers where going after hightwayman in they camp they wouldnot stand up in formation an be sitting duck they would apporach speadout takeing avangte of cover to protection thenself from gunfire.

[CharlesBHoff]

The moon rocket was than very complex piece of machine. When VonBrown was working on the V2 rocket in WWII they have ploblem inverting than lightweight pump able to pump the fuel fast enought for the rocket to work. He visit than evant than was talking to than pump manufactor when he mention his plob with makeing than pump to do the job the Nazie member who ran the pump factory said we have than pump that can work for you with afew change it the fireengince pump on all fireengine. Fireengine pump must be simple and reliab, powerful to pump alot of water at than fire, than average fireengine pump wasd capable of pumping 50000 gal of water a minutes, have to be lightweight enought to fit on a fireengine.

To make than trip to the moon possible alot of tech problen have to be workout. The Command cap have 4mm of gold to protect the crew from the van Velt belt radiation 4mm of gold give the same protection as 24 inches of lead for far less weight but at greater cost.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ErikM
What leverage? Suppose for a second that it works and has a success rate of 95% (which is a lot better than the probability of hitting a cruise missile for any existing air defense system, but Ok). Are you saying US is going to risk a war with NK because the chance of NK hitting LA is only 5%?

Are you saying that NK having a nuke doesn't give them leverage?