Tweet
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yet again, you ignore what I said to go off on how we're demanding perfection and saying it will never work. :rolleyeys: At this point I can only conclude you are trolling, since we have repeated time and again, that is not the case.
It's funny. People ***** and moan about buying buggy software that just needs a patch. The "missile shield" isn't even in a pre-release version, but we're being forced to shell out $20 billion. Again, how would you feel about being forced to buy and use a "proof of concept" piece of software?
It may be the case that in a decade or so this will work. That's fine. Let's go ahead and continue spending money trying to see if we can make it work. Given the test results we currently have, however, it is a waste of money to build a unit, not for testing, but for actual defense. It's also dangerous, cuz once it exists, policy makers will forget that this system hasn't succeeded at anything approximating a real test, but has only been able to hit the equivalent of the broad side of a barn from the inside of that barn with the doors and windows closed.
This is the equivalent of the United States building an airforce ten years before Orvile and Wilber Wright flew at Kitty Hawk. It's the equivalent of trying to send a man to the moon on a rocket built by Goddard. We aren't saying the technology will never work. We aren't saying it won't work now because it's a crazy idea. We are saying, based on the actual tests and results it does not work.
It has succeeded in five out of eight tests in tests. Thats about a 60% chance of success. This, however, is the equivalent of giving a student all the answers on a math test, and his getting 60% of the answers right, and then expecting him to be able to do the math on his own. It's a farce.
The tests only succeeded because:
1) The test targets were fired on an outbound trajectory. This enabled the ABM tracking system to track the missile from launch, giving it more time to calculate a trajectory. This will not be the case for an inbound missile.
2) The test missiles had homing beacons on them. This enabled the ABM to not only track the target but home in on it in flight. Three times it still missed. The enemy is not going to put a hmoing beacon on their missiles.
3) No counter measures, such as dummy warheads, smoke, etc. If they can't deal with this problem, then there's no point in even bothering with the program.
I am sure all these problems can be overcome in time. What I do not want, however, is to be forced to spend $20 billion on a pre-alpha system that can't surmount even one of these issues.
Is that being too demanding?
Yet again, you ignore what I said to go off on how we're demanding perfection and saying it will never work. :rolleyeys: At this point I can only conclude you are trolling, since we have repeated time and again, that is not the case.
It's funny. People ***** and moan about buying buggy software that just needs a patch. The "missile shield" isn't even in a pre-release version, but we're being forced to shell out $20 billion. Again, how would you feel about being forced to buy and use a "proof of concept" piece of software?
It may be the case that in a decade or so this will work. That's fine. Let's go ahead and continue spending money trying to see if we can make it work. Given the test results we currently have, however, it is a waste of money to build a unit, not for testing, but for actual defense. It's also dangerous, cuz once it exists, policy makers will forget that this system hasn't succeeded at anything approximating a real test, but has only been able to hit the equivalent of the broad side of a barn from the inside of that barn with the doors and windows closed.
This is the equivalent of the United States building an airforce ten years before Orvile and Wilber Wright flew at Kitty Hawk. It's the equivalent of trying to send a man to the moon on a rocket built by Goddard. We aren't saying the technology will never work. We aren't saying it won't work now because it's a crazy idea. We are saying, based on the actual tests and results it does not work.
It has succeeded in five out of eight tests in tests. Thats about a 60% chance of success. This, however, is the equivalent of giving a student all the answers on a math test, and his getting 60% of the answers right, and then expecting him to be able to do the math on his own. It's a farce.
The tests only succeeded because:
1) The test targets were fired on an outbound trajectory. This enabled the ABM tracking system to track the missile from launch, giving it more time to calculate a trajectory. This will not be the case for an inbound missile.
2) The test missiles had homing beacons on them. This enabled the ABM to not only track the target but home in on it in flight. Three times it still missed. The enemy is not going to put a hmoing beacon on their missiles.
3) No counter measures, such as dummy warheads, smoke, etc. If they can't deal with this problem, then there's no point in even bothering with the program.
I am sure all these problems can be overcome in time. What I do not want, however, is to be forced to spend $20 billion on a pre-alpha system that can't surmount even one of these issues.
Is that being too demanding?
You would scream no matter what was done. You don't like it. As you said, you value no American city over one in Korea. I think your adminstration and Congress does. I should hope to hell they do. I live on one of the many trajectories that one of those less than smart bombs may make their way.
Comment