ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[DRoseDARs]

First, why launch an interceptor, which costs taxpayers' money, if intercepting it isn't the point. Also, we have in our arsenal plenty of ordinance that can be fired without concern for the weather. Why is this even an issue to scrub a test?

[Patroklos]

National security trumps international trade if the US government gets serious about securing our ports.

You would think, but your underestimating the harm to the economy that would do.

Go to a shipyard, look at the container parks, and then tell me how you plan to check them all. I am serious.

Of course we could rebuild all the nations container and port facilites. You fitting the bill.

That is after we close the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Are we going to put every fishing boat and personal craft through your detectors too, every day.

We will need to close our airspace so none of those pesky small planes get in either.


I understand what your saying, I just don't think anyone in the US really wants it if they thought about it. Our society will always be vulnerble to this. It is hardcoded.

[DRoseDARs]

I have to continue Christmas shopping, but I'll be back later. There are other polytubbies who are more knowledgable in this field than I am that would probably be happy to continue debating with you. Let's agree to strongly disagree. You think it's worth it now, I think it's a "wishlist" item as aptly labeled that can wait until after other security concerns are addressed.

[Patroklos]

First, why launch an interceptor, which costs taxpayers' money, if intercepting it isn't the point. Also, we have in our arsenal plenty of ordinance that can be fired without concern for the weather. Why is this even an issue to scrub a test?

Who said it wasn't going to intercept, or that it couldn't in bad wether. All they said was that the parameters of THIS test required good weather.

We do have lots of things in our arsenal, unfortunetly if I want to test an aspect of an ABM interceptor missile, I kind have to use an ABM interceptor missile.

Are you telling me you can't think of any test relevent to the program that would not require an actual interception? Engine tests? visual observation tests? Aerial manuverability tests? A host of others.

Do you know every airframe in our inventory routinely goes through the wind tunnel even though 1000s of hours are logged on each in real life every day.

This isn't very hard.

[Patroklos]

Did I ever say the ABM was worth it now? Quote me if I did. I would much rather they spend that money on missiles planes and tanks.

And just because now that it is built I support us using it does not mean I supported it in the beginning. But if it makes you happy we can return it. I am sure those happy defense contactors will give us our money baclk.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Who said it wasn't going to intercept, or that it couldn't in bad wether. All they said was that the parameters of THIS test required good weather.

I was calling the "interceptor" it's opposite. I should have said "target". They shouldn't have bothered with launching the target if that wasn't what they were testing. From the article:

Because the launches will test several new aspects of the missile defense system, Lehner said the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission.

Continuing your quoted post:

We do have lots of things in our arsenal, unfortunetly if I want to test an aspect of an ABM interceptor missile, I kind have to use an ABM interceptor missile.

Er, duh? I'm not talking about the weapons themselves, I'm talking about the components that make them work without much regard to the weather conditions.

Are you telling me you can't think of any test relevent to the program that would not require an actual interception? Engine tests? visual observation tests? Aerial manuverability tests? A host of others.

Goes back to why is a target launcher necessary for that? Engines can be fired and tested on the ground. Visual observations? If you mean tracking the damn thing we already do that, and improving upon that can be down under the auspices of existing programs like NORAD. Aerial manuverability can also be tested without a seperate missile. Have it follow a pre-programmed lfight path and measure the deviation from it.

Do you know every airframe in our inventory routinely goes through the wind tunnel even though 1000s of hours are logged on each in real life every day.

Yes, I did. Your point and its relevance?

This isn't very hard.

No, it isn't. Yet you people keep defending this boondoggle as if it were progressing as advertised. That's my biggest problem with this whole f*cking thing: The Bush Administration and the military keep selling this potential lemon that's still in the preliminary "working" model stage as if it were ready for the showroom floor. I don't think it's a terrible idea, I just think there are better uses for that money that can deal with more pressing threats.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Did I ever say the ABM was worth it now? Quote me if I did. I would much rather they spend that money on missiles planes and tanks.

And just because now that it is built I support us using it does not mean I supported it in the beginning.

I appologize if I misinterpreted your defending it so adamently as being in support of it.

But if it makes you happy we can return it. I am sure those happy defense contactors will give us our money baclk.

If you still have the receipt, please do!
We can wait to buy a more refined model later. Early releases of new products seem to always suck anyway...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your're trying to make a joke, right?

You do have a clue where rattling sabres and threatening war ends up, don't you?

Good rebuttal. Now try something more solid than pure speculation.

Originally posted by notyoueither
He says he has warheads? The world says he has warheads? He lobbed a missile over the Japanese mainland?

Are you being intentionally dense?

Has there been one verified instance of DPRK nuclear device testing? The answer is no. So again, all hot air and no substance.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'd be surprised if Japan is not secretly preparing themselves for the eventuality that they need to make N Korea an isotope soup when Kim finally goes totally off his rocker and they can't chance it anymore.

Again, you cannot make nuclear warheads without testing them. Nowadays, everybody can detect such tests. So there's no such thing as "secretly preparing."

[DRoseDARs]

Pakistan and India did it...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
[not as mad as you are if you think he's completely insane. his moves, as odd and idiotic as they may be, fall into a recurring pattern: lots of loud posturing and bluffing, rummaging around and revealing tantalizing tidbits before hiding them again, and demanding a payoff.

Yup, I am glad you agree that Kim isn't insane. He has a method to his madness. The Bomb is the last leverage he has on the rest of the world, so he is going to squeeze as much advantages out as he could manage.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Pakistan and India did it...

Nope. Any nuclear tests conducted by these countries were quickly known by the outside world.

[DRoseDARs]

He was talking about secretly working on developing nukes, not conducting their first live-fire test of them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
He was talking about secretly working on developing nukes, not conducting their first live-fire test of them.

Sure, it's possible that they are secretly developing nuclear weapons. Developing is not the same as making working ones.

[Dr Strangelove]

So someone trying to attack the US in the future would precede his nuke with an ICBM that sprayed Silver Nitrate crystals to seed the cloud cover and make it rain over the targets?