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

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Its what all the cool Nobel Prize winners read.

That was the best article I've ever read and it sums up my own analysis of the situation.

Iraq will be find. Getting there will be painful. But it will happen.

[chequita guevara]

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

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The United States Submarine Service is more than capable of sinking a fishing boat! Just ask the Japanese!

That assumes you have a submarine under my fishing boat with Republican connected businessmen onboard.

[Sava]

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

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That assumes you have a submarine under my fishing boat with Republican connected businessmen onboard.

boy would that be a great accident!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

Exactly

Even if the Shield does work, which it doesn't, there are other ways to deliver the weapons, as you and MtG pointed out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How dumb can you get?

Imran, if you are so brilliant, perhaps you could refute the arguments put forth by the UCS report, instead of calling people names here?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by mindseye


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.

The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, if you are so brilliant, perhaps you could refute the arguments put forth by the UCS report, instead of calling people names here?

The UCS have forgotten that progress takes baby steps. Simply because something doesn't work perfectly as it should now, doesn't mean that we should stop all work and tests on it. That's utterly silly. Saying that something like this will never work is a foolish statement akin to saying everything that will be discovered has been discovered.

[Az]

I am somehow in doubt that it cannot work. If you work with it enough, it will work. The alternate delivery systems, relevant to the terrorism threat, etc. are of course, not targetted by this, but this could put off North Korea. ( Though I think that for the money spent, you could actually buy north Korea, but I am not sure. )

WRG to the terrorist threat, This can be solved for much less cash, and quite easier, but noone cares, I guess. ( The total screening all of that traffic costs a lot? I somehow think that the equipment will cost much much less, and can be merged with screening for contraband, which would actually benefit the economy somewhat.

In a somewhat related topic, We already have Anti-Theatre-ballistic-missiles, and they're operational. Those, of course, are different from AICBMs*whistles*

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, if you are so brilliant, perhaps you could refute the arguments put forth by the UCS report, instead of calling people names here?

The UCS have forgotten that progress takes baby steps. Simply because something doesn't work perfectly as it should now, doesn't mean that we should stop all work and tests on it. That's utterly silly. Saying that something like this will never work is a foolish statement akin to saying everything that will be discovered has been discovered.

I could have sworn that the UCS has never said anything like the Missile Shield would never work.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
In a somewhat related topic, We already have Anti-Theatre-ballistic-missiles, and they're operational.

Something like SLBMs? AFAIK they are even harder to counter, due to surprise and speed.

[Az]

How do they have a higher speed?

in any case, yes, it's already operational, IIRC. And there is no surpirse from ground launchers, you just have to have a satellite over the region for that (And Israel has that capability achieved, too )

[RGBVideo]

.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Whoha

The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US.A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Fishing boats, small cargo vessels, container ships and small prop planes are all routinely - and successfully - used by smugglers to get drugs and illegal aliens into the US, despite the best attempts to "detect and dispatch" them. These are tried and tested delivery systems.

And as we know from NK's nuclear program, smuggling shipments of highly sensitive materials around the world is pretty easy. I wouldn't expect to see, for instance, a container ship set sail directly from North Korea to LA at the outset of hostilities. Anyone capable of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon deserves credit for more cunning than that.

For that matter, the container ship in question may not knowingly have anything to do with the attack. For example, a weapon could be trans-shipped to any number of ports around the world, and finally put on board an unsuspecting vessel destined for an American harbor. Then the weapon is detonated remotely.

The 50 billion could be far better spent on other programs such as intelligence - programs which, unlike a missile shield, would actually contribute something to our national security.

Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?

Better analogy: Should we buy 50 BILLION dollar bulletproof vests to defend against someone who has easy access to a sword?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
How do they have a higher speed?

Not necessary a higher speed, but takes much less time to reach their targets.

Originally posted by Azazel
in any case, yes, it's already operational, IIRC. And there is no surpirse from ground launchers, you just have to have a satellite over the region for that (And Israel has that capability achieved, too )

Sats don't sit in one spot, though.

[Az]

Actually. Geo-stationary sats do.

but I agree with your point. That's why there is more than one.