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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, because politicians are the ones who are putting this whole thing together. It's the Senators who are creating the plans and aiming the missiles? Because there are absolutely no scientists working on the project?

Gee, it isn't as if those guys are getting PAID BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to work on this project, are they? I'm sure they'd turn down the huge payoff coming from the government just because it's unfeasible. I'm sure the folks at Boeing are conscientious enough not to take billions of dollars to work on something that isn't really feasible, right?

It's funny how you're dismissing the arguments and just attacking the source. A source whose members have more knowledge about science in their pinkies than the entire conservative cabal of Apolyton combined.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Stupid Nobel prize winners next thing you know they'll be saying stupid things like this .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Stupid Nobel prize winners next thing you know they'll be saying stupid things like this .

Nobel prize winners are going to ask us to get an online subscription to the Wall Street Journal? That would be strange of them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, because politicians are the ones who are putting this whole thing together. It's the Senators who are creating the plans and aiming the missiles? Because there are absolutely no scientists working on the project?

Scientists aren't stupid. If a politician comes to you and says "We have $50 billion that we can give you for a research project, do you think you can make it a success?" you are going to reply "Yes!".

The ones who are complaining are the guys that aren't in on the action.

How dumb can you get?

And wasn't it Kennedy, a politician, who said we'll get to the moon by the end of the decade? How DARE a politician who knows less about science say those things.... oh wait, we did that. Never mind then

I think most scientists who weren't directly involved also said that it would take a lot of effort but it was obtainable. It was still a misuse of money (in my opinion), and the moon landings would have been non-starter if the US got the first man into space.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Nobel prize winners are going to ask us to get an online subscription to the Wall Street Journal? That would be strange of them.

Its what all the cool Nobel Prize winners read.

ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY

Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.

BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.

No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.

As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.




So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.

Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.

If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.

Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.

The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.

Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.




In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation

[Boris Godunov]

Of course, this all misses the point that the scientists aren't saying that the defense project is impossible, just that right now it doesn't work, and yet the government is actually going to shell out billions to implement the currently non-working system by September 30. This isn't about continued research, it's about putting something up that can't do what it's supposed to do, and they know it can't do it! It's patently ludicrous.

Which is also not counting the scientist's arguments that other, much more effective means of countering a strike could be researched more readily. The missile shield is a pie-in-the-sky pet project that seems to be pursued with doggedness without any logical thinking.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, because politicians are the ones who are putting this whole thing together. It's the Senators who are creating the plans and aiming the missiles? Because there are absolutely no scientists working on the project?

If I'm an applied science guy working for a contractor who stands to make billions on this thing, then of course it'll work, it'll work great, and the concept is really simple...

How dumb can you get?

Look at the history of failed weapons systems, failed energy technologies, and other publicly funded technology boondoggles. What matters isn't being right, it's making a good enough Powerpoint presentation to get the ol' Pork-o-meter turned on.

And wasn't it Kennedy, a politician, who said we'll get to the moon by the end of the decade? How DARE a politician who knows less about science say those things.... oh wait, we did that. Never mind then

Kennedy didn't say it until he had advice from credible enough scientists that it could be done.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

And how is this remotely relevant to the thread? That isn't about missile defense, nor is it by a scientist.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It wasn't. It was merely a post regarding what Nobel prize winners say.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It wasn't. It was merely a post regarding what Nobel prize winners say.

No one cares what others say, unless it supports their own preconceptions and opinions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Verto


No one cares what others say, unless it supports their own preconceptions and opinions.

I don't care what you say for a second. Wait you have the Reagan, so you must support my line of thinking.


Your absolutely right there Verto.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS

The upside is that potential nuclear states will see that it's no longer enough to make one or two nukes to be a nuclear power. Building and maintaining more than a handful of nukes is very expensive and has a large signature (easier for our intelligence to pick up). We're simply attempting to raise some reasonable barriers to entry into the nuke club.

Even if the missile defense doesn't work 100%, then the barriers to entry will be raised. In the future, it might indeed work 100%, so a country is going to have to factor that into its trade-off of nukes vs. no nukes.

Sorry DanS, but that logic simply doesn't hold water.

As myself and others have pointed out again and again in missile "shield" threads, an intercontinental ballistic missile is the most complex, the most expensive, the hardest to develop and most easily detected delivery system.

A warhead could be much more easily delivered via ship, small plane, or even truck. A multi-billion dollar missile shield gives the US 0% protection against such threats.

Far from "raising the entry barrier", a missile shield (even a perfect one) only channels potential enemies into using lower-tech delivery systems that are (perversely) perhaps more likely to succesfully reach their target (i.e. container ship technology is far more tested, reliable, and available than intercontinental ballistic missile technology).

These arguments have never been refuted in something like ten different missile shield threads.

DanS, I fear you have already forgotten the lesson of the USS Cole. Terrorists did not need to acquire a nuclear sub or an AEGIS cruiser to attack the Cole. They simply used an alternate delivery system: a rowboat.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It wasn't. It was merely a post regarding what Nobel prize winners say.

that was a nobel PEACE prize winner... not a scientist. And his first sentence proves he's a moron.

[Dr Strangelove]

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

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Those were the ones that failed.

Seriously, did you not read the article? All of the tests were "highly controlled." This program isn't designed to defend the U.S. It's designed to give Raytheon $50 billion dollars.

Anyway, let's conduct a little wargame, shall we?

You get a working missile defense system. I get a nuke. Defend yourself!

I put my nuke on a fishing boat and sail it into L.A. BOOM! You lose.

The United States Submarine Service is more than capable of sinking a fishing boat! Just ask the Japanese! They know all about how easily our nuclear subs can sink a fishing boat. We don't even need to fire a shot, all we have to do is ram them. The SS Ben Hur is ready for service! Rammmmiiiiinnnnngggggg Speeeeeeddddddd!

[Sava]

Rammmmiiiiinnnnngggggg Speeeeeeddddddd!

perhaps today IS a good day to die!