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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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

Wow Really? I wouldn't have know if it weren't for the fact that it was listed clearly in at least 4 instances within the article.

The point being of course that for all of you that think the Nobel prize (peace, science or otherwise) is the end all be all and think that by virtue of having one, you can't be wrong, is fallacy.

In this particular case, this Peace prize winner is dead on the money tho'.

[Sirotnikov]

From what I know, the system is still acting poorly, but it isn't really a finished project.

I'm not sure why are some things made operational now (an unpublished threat? ) because from what I know, the project was meant to go operational until 10 years from now at least.

I know the Israeli system (though not against ICBMs) is operational now, and works very well.

The US system's developement was tied to the Israeli developement. The US defense ministry was sckeptical until Israeli tests proved it is can work. US now has all of the Israeli knowledge from developing the arrow project, and much more (you are after all "slightly" bigger and richer )

Israeli experts told me that the US system is expected to surpass the Israeli system in both abilities and quality. So you shouldn't worry.


Someone mentioned an Israeli anti-rocket system- it is a whole different technology and works only on rockets. It is also a shared US-Israeli production and isn't done yet, though it is successfull in testing.


Btw, if you think that this project makes a hole in your economy then you are stupid, because this is your economy.

The money supports advances in technology and science and provides for working spaces and such. Parts of the technology will no doubt find its way into the civilian market and make it boom.

Imagine that - if someone would have cancelled the "idiotic hole in the economy" called the Apollo project, you wouldn't have anti-stick teflon pans!

Money that goes into scientifical and technological research, no matter how unprobable or how far the fruits are , is always good for economy.

[Az]

Siro, the systems are used for different threats, Theatre BMs, and ICBMs, demand different capabilities, IIRC.

in any case, the reason the US funded around 50% of both, IIRC, is that it was used to get around the ABM treaty. They didn't want to break it at that certain point, and we wanted an ABM, so they "subcontracted" it to us. ( Iran-Contra? )

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

They basically have. They oppose any research into it, not simply this deployment.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

Time for a MrFun moment:

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.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

They basically have. They oppose any research into it, not simply this deployment.

But they don't oppose it because they think it will never, ever work--they explicitely state that they oppose it because 1) it's bad foreign relations that they believe will lead to nuclear escalation, and 2) there are more effective means of countering potentional nuclear attack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they don't oppose it because they think it will never, ever work

Plenty of them do oppose it because they believe it is money down the drain, ie, it won't work.

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.

But implimenting the system IS a part of research. It will better be able to perform field tests if you have the system set up how it will be when the technology is 100% workable.

[MikeH]

What's a boondoggle?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MikeH
What's a boondoggle?

A hugely expensive waste of money on something essentially futile.

[MikeH]

Ah. Is there a story behind the name?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

they don't oppose it because they think it will never, ever work

Plenty of them do oppose it because they believe it is money down the drain, ie, it won't work.

Yeah, which ones?m

But implimenting the system IS a part of research. It will better be able to perform field tests if you have the system set up how it will be when the technology is 100% workable.

Which the UCS report points out is patent bull****, as "the timing of deployment of this missile defense system is not based on events in the development and testing program, but on external factors."

Did you bother to read it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, which ones?

Every article which has the UCS posted here talks about how missile defense doesn't work and it's a waste of money. In this article, they limited their critique to the current system, but it is still telling.

Which the UCS report points out is patent bull****, as "the timing of deployment of this missile defense system is not based on events in the development and testing program, but on external factors."

That's nice what the UCS says, but frankly I don't believe them. I think the deployment of a missle defense would be a great way to research the system further.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, which ones?

Every article which has the UCS posted here talks about how missile defense doesn't work and it's a waste of money. In this article, they limited their critique to the current system, but it is still telling.

Yeah, where?

That's nice what the UCS says, but frankly I don't believe them. I think the deployment of a missle defense would be a great way to research the system further.

They don't just say it, they provide evidence for it in the report. Which you haven't read. So once again, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You can think anything you want, but these guys actually have evidence for what they say.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Siro, the systems are used for different threats, Theatre BMs, and ICBMs, demand different capabilities, IIRC.

Why did you feel you have to explain it to me?

If there's anything in my post suggesting otherwise I'll be glad to correct it.

Still, the american project started basically as an advanced Hetz project.

The Israelis came in search for funding, and proved the US it can be done, so the US allowed funding if they can take all the knowledge and apply it to their own Missile Shield program, which got a huge push from that.


Technically, IIRC, the Israeli Hetz system could theoretically deal with ICBMs if it had much larger radars or satellites. Though I'm sure the success rate would go down, as it's optimized for theater ballistic missiles.

in any case, the reason the US funded around 50% of both, IIRC, is that it was used to get around the ABM treaty. They didn't want to break it at that certain point, and we wanted an ABM, so they "subcontracted" it to us. ( Iran-Contra? )

Well, another reason is that they were doubtful it could be done, and here came along a group of Israelis with a bright idea.

That way they could put money into it, without taking criticism if it seriously flops. "We were just trying to help those wacky Israelis" they could say.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MikeH
Ah. Is there a story behind the name?

A quick google check later:

http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-boo1.htm