 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:33 PM I think Peter T was on target (speaking of bull'seyes) when he said we had an opportunity to gain worldwide control over nuclear proliferation due to collapse of the Russian Empire. The lack of foresight in this area has been pathetic. I don't think it's too late at this time, but I don't see anything happening until Bush is out of office. Here's the main problem : controlling nuclear proliferation is not a money maker. Star Wars Systems are. I don't think by any means that the profit motive is the only one. I think Bush believes in this, as do many others. But it is usually much easier to believe in something that also earns you money. Personally, I think that the SDI is technology that doesn't confront the political reality of today. It is a Reagan-era legacy that primarily depends on an adversary who operates as we do, with an arsenal of silo-based ICBMs. Those above who said that the danger may be more in the nature of a terrorist attack, a boat or just a suitcase, had it right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: JenEllen Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM These kinds of discussions always alternately incense and sadden me. Just as a 2cents, I offer this thought for you. When dinner parties (inevitably) turn to this, I set up this little 'party game'. You'd be amazed at the results. You are a good, tax-paying American. When it's time to give the devil his due, you owe UncleSam the tidy sum of $100. However, in Jenny's Luverly Democracy, you actually get a definitive say in where your money goes. Knowing what you know about your immediate community and the world at large, and knowing your friends, families, children, and your own needs, split your money. How much would you pay for: Education: Computers for schools, salaries for teachers, updated textbooks, larger classrooms, federal funding for college tuition, worker re-training, etc. Infrastructure: The potholes on main street to hub airports, police and fire, etc Community: welfare, job corps programs, animal control, etc. Humans: medical care, parenting education and family planning, etc. Environment: Cleaner air/water, alternative fuels, park preservation, wildlife preservation, adequate water for urban areas/farming communities, etc Arts: federal programs both to teach and to sponsor Government: salaries for politicians, 'business expenses', etc. Humanitarian: peace-corps, docs without boarders, helping other countries/communities by sharing your wealth, experience, and knowledge. Military: Army, Navy, AirForce, Marines, CoastGuard, etc. (and as to not be unfair to Doug, keep in mind you are protecting all of the above listed things that you have spent your hard earned money on) Now tally it and share. It is amazing to see how different the common person's perception of a need is from the actual tallies. Most folks, even my die-hard military buddies, if given the option of spending their money on a billionth interest in a stealth jet, or the education of their children, will pick people first. As for the latest military topic? Well, 'some of the time' does not exactly scream success to me. Nowhere else in the US would a person tolerate, however remotely, 'sometimes'. We're gonna sell you this car, now, half the time, when you crank her up, she ain't gonna start...but when she runs, she runs. A fat lot of good that thought will do you when your ass is stranded on the 405. I wonder when, exactly, people became so blinded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:50 PM Nope, RobDale, I'm not just stirring the pot. The President, any President, takes an oath to preserve and protect the United States of America when he takes the oath of office. That's what the Bush administration is attempting to do. Plain and simple. Obviously, a lot of folks don't appreciate their efforts. Bill D. Yep, I know where the Maginot Line is and how ineffective it was in WWII. I think the cooperation pact being sealed now between China and Russia in Moscow is far more likely to recreate Cold War atmosphere, than one little old missile seeking out and destroying a dummy war head. Kendall, that sounds like a fun thing to do. Maybe we could make some music too! As to your remark about my being an Ostrich, maybe I like the "Boll Weavil" am just "looking for a home ..." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:20 PM DougR R you just trying to stir things up or do you believe what you are saying? There is NO WAY, this thing is going to be cost effective. Even if they build and man enough of these things to give real protection, the bad guys will just find another way to deliver their bombs. The Russians, Chinese, French, and English can deliver their weapons with cruise missiles. The others can use boats or commercial planes. This plan is nothing but pork barrelling. That being said, if you are going to spend billions on R&D Isn't it better to spend it on technologies which reduce internation tensions rather than increase them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: A Wandering Minstrel Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:13 PM you remark but doesn't one have to stretch a bit to equate spending billions on removing poverty and ignorance and somebody shooting missiles at us? OK the stretch is this .... every dollar you don't spend on dealing death is a dollar you can spend on improving life. You wanted feedback from other countries? here is some... This is a policy to antagonizes your enemies and your allies. Nothing good will come of it. Your government appears to be pursuing it despite all good advice to the contrary, because it will provide "jobs for the boys". Any other explanation/justification is disingenuous and partisan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Peter T. Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:36 AM The truth is that it is a strategy of despair, and that is what makes one despair. To have given up on the tough struggle for hope in favour of some techno solution, and so obviously. One hates to give up on the dream of the United States -- even a foreigner can dream of the hope that the United States represents. It is very hard to have to do that. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:09 AM Ronald Ray gun had a high approval rating too, all that says is that there are many morons out there. Not you Doug, you are an ostrich! Do you remember when John Wayne trusted his government when it said the canyon where he made his last movie was safe from radiation? He believed them, made the film. threatened to beat up someone who did not trust the government, and a few years later, every one of the people who worked in that canyon died of cancer. Do you know what the the people within 200 miles of White Sands NM were told when they said "What the hell was that"? They were told that an ammo dump blew up! Do I trust my government? What do you think? Doug, better come up and do some fly fishing before the moron gets us all killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Bill D Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:45 AM as I think I posted once before somewhere, Does the phrase "Maginot Line" ring any bells? And I can almost hear General Custer yelling, "I got one, boys...keep firing!" If we have enemies who really decide to 'get' us, they won't NEED missles...little a-bombs in U-Haul trucks will do fine. Peter T & Alex said it it just fine, this is BOTH "pork" and useless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:04 AM Ah yes, RobDale, but doesn't one have to stetch a bit to equate spending billions on removing poverty and ignorance and somebody shooting missils at us? I would bet that somebody in the Pentagon, or some other appropriate agency of the federal government, has thought of exactly the same possibilities for attack as have been suggested here. Perhaps they will be on the watch for those terriorist techniques as part of the overall SDI. And Kendall, I assume you were talking about our president when you referred to the "moron." Did you note that Bush's approval rating improved 5 points over the previous poll taken by the N.Y.Times and CBS? Probably not. The increase was not touted much. The decrease in the previous poll garnered a great deal of press attention, though. I wonder why? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:48 AM As someone else here said in different words, If a rogue state wanted to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction then a ship would be the best delivery vehicle. All George is doing is angering all of the countries with real nukes. Also, if they are planning to use these things for real protection then they are going to have to deploy a whole bunch of them. Remember their success rate so far is 50%, when the know when and from where the missle will be launched. The security interests of the US would be better served by pouring these billions into removing poverty and ignorance: cheaper, cleaner energy, reclaimation of desert and education. Too bad future generations didn't contribute to Mr. Bush's election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:33 PM That moron scares me, and, so do ostriches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:57 PM Actually the seattle area boeing plants do almost no defense work. Boeing saw its share in the federal tit dry up almost completely through the 80s and 90s. It was only after they bought North American and Mcdonnel/Douglas that Boeing's share of defense work moved upwards, as it were. And nearly all that work is done elsewhere. This is more of that "we should worship Big Business because they create so many jobs" nonsense. Most jobs in this country are created by SMALL business, and virtually all of these without federal dolers [sic]. Boeing is just as happy to axe jobs when it makes the shareholders happy. It is not in the business of making jobs, but of making money for stockholders. So no alligator tears, if you please, for corporate welfare. Before the merger Boeing made 90% of its income from the private sector (and the rest was mostly space not defense). Those of us in "heritage Boeing" would be just as happy to see the other half go away again. Listen to me, I'm starting to sound like a libertarian. Shoot me quick! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:42 PM Alex, you are accepting what Greg reports as fact? I saw Secretary of Defense Rumsfield testifying before a Congressional Committee recently and he debunked that theory. His reply to that question was, "What would be the point of that?" MT, I believe in a recent post you mentioned that you work for Boeing. Does Boeing do any defense work? If so, what would be the effect on Boeing, and it's employees, if all defense work with your company ceased tomorrow? "Corporate welfare?" I would think those who work for large corporations would be damn glad there is such a thing, to say nothing of the shareholders of the company stock. The whole Seattle area benefits from such "corporate welfare." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:31 PM Proceeding whether it works or not is a pretty good indication that their PURPOSE is not to create a defense system. That was the song-and-dance they used to sell it to the public. Hard to know what their purpose is, but if I had to wager a guess, the words "corporate welfare" do spring to mind... Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jul 01 - 08:11 PM The actual functioning of the system is a matter of no consequence. Smirking Doofus & Co. have stated they intend to proceed whether it works or not.Clear case of not allowing them pesky facts to get in the way. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:52 PM Nah it won't do that Kendall! They can't afford it! If they attempted it they would have to borrow the money from the U. S. Rest easy, my friend. Bush is on the right track. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:50 PM Nah it won't Kendall! They can't afford it! Rest easy, my friend. Bush is on the right track. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:15 PM Doug, listen, IT AINT EVER GOING TO GET PUT IN PLACE!! President Putin of Russia is very nervous, the head of China is furious, these people hate us! and with damn good reason! I fear that this smirking doofus in the White House is going to start an arms race that will make the last one look like a video game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:07 PM You guys are riot (Alex and Gareth)! :>) I'm sure there are folks much smarter than I who are considering the exact problems you have posed. Who knows, they may be exploring even more sophisticated probabilities that are not even advanced here! I'll leave it up to those guys to figure out how to make it work. But to leave you with an encouraging thought ...the system, so far, has only been able to shoot down two out of the four missils shot at. Maybe the next attempt will fail! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:41 PM Funny, that's what they say on our Supreme Court. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM Mousethief Actually, I heard there was going to be a rerun of Watergate. Someone broke into Jeb Bush's office and stole the election results for 2004 As they say in Ulster "Vote Republican, Vote frequently" Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:33 PM Sorry. Plurality? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:28 PM mousethief Does that mean you did not vote ? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mousethief Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:22 PM And when the incoming missile is a MIRV and splits into, oh, say, 100 mini-missiles all going in different directions, will you be able to shoot all 100 of them down? When there are, oh, say, 1000 of these 100-missile delivery rockets incoming? But that's not the real issue. As has been pointed out, the real issue is the destabilization of the world balance of power. We've had a delightfully nuclear-free world (at least the major cities thereof) since Nagasaki. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "nuclear clock" seemed to run down for good. Why must Shrub incite our friends and enemies at this point? Is it that, without a Cold War, he doesn't know how to run foreign policy? We should be working to build ties with other nations, not destroy them. But what do I know? I voted with the majority in 2000. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:19 PM Doug R Try "The 4th Fourth Protocol" by Fredrick Forsyth or Koestlers "Brighter than the Noon Day Sun", this was made into a film, come to think about it, as films go on non missile nuclear attacks try "True Lies". I have little doubt that Iran/Iraq Etc would flatten the US of A (or the UK) if given a chance - not that I agree with that fundamentalist philosophy. But following your logic, should not the US of A follow the Carwen James school of thought and get their retaliation in first. Or is the thought of Radio Active Oil sufficient to calm (control) the super hawks ambition. No let Uncle Sam spend his money how he likes, but don't imperil what world stability there is to divert attention from the Republicans internal economic problems. Incidently do you know what the Maginot line was ? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 06:01 PM It's one thing shooting down a missile when you know when it's coming and what direction it's coming from. It might not be quite that easy if you don't know
1) If it's coming Could the defenders spot the incoming missile in time, or would they be so bored waiting that they miss it? Do it with computers? Yeah, sure. Could they then get the data on its trajectory quickly enough to program the defending missile? How fast can the defending missile be programmed (each time the programming would have to be ad hoc)? Could they then launch the defending missile in time? What then are the chances of nailing the incoming missile? Considering the speed of ICMBs, that's crucial. Even more crucial with short-range missiles. How about a short-range missile fired from a submarine ten miles off the coast at a city, say, thirty miles inland? Or a cruise missile? Will this system take MIRVs into consideration?
And that's only one mode of attack -- a method perhaps made obsolete by low-tech delivery systems such as the aforementioned freighter or the bomb in a truck. Not to mention biological agents. Now
And who's going to launch this attack? China or Russia perhaps, if they become sufficiently frightened of or pissed off at the U.S? And using missiles would show an amazing lack of imagination. Iraq? Cuba? Actually, I would be more apprehensive about some of those really really pure folks who periodically march through the streets of Couer d' Alene, Idaho in their pretty white sheets and neatly pressed storm-trooper uniforms. I don't think they have missiles, but they do have other methods.
There are think-tanks all over the world whose business is to think of the unthinkable, and not all of them are as stupid as some of ours appear to be. Missile systems are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and very unreliable. There are much more efficient ways of committing mass murder that are quite inexpensive. If I can think them up, I'm sure there are folks out there who can too -- and ones far more diabolical than I can dream up.
And this is considering only the technical side of it. The political ramifications are a real can of worms. The reaction of other nations. The effect on our own economy. It occurs to me that there might be an element of Wag the Dog about this whole missile defense thing. Think about it.
Needless to say, I don't consider the resurrection of Star Wars to be the brightest idea that George W has come up with.
Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:44 PM Thank you for your responses. Interesting. Sins: Your second paragraph presents an excellent argument for developing SDI. Gareth: Saddam has plenty of money. So does Iran. They would rather see this country reduced to rubble than participate in a pay-off, I believe. I trust, by the way, that you have shared your inside information on how a terrorist will (yes will IMO) deliver the first blow. Ickle Dorrit: Nope, but it's a start, isn't it? The U. S. has never had any problems finding ways to make enemies. We are probably the most hated country in the world as it is. Kendall: Be patient. If we haven't heard from our fellow mudcatters from foreign countries, I'm confident we will. Anyway, when the system is in place and working, we won't tell anybody. The Walrus: (1) That's why they do tests. (2) They can if they can afford it. Who would that be? As to 50% success rate, again, that's why they are doing tests. Peter T: "the objection has never been it won't work." Surely you jest. **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:29 PM Actually for missile Defence System read Maginot Line. With the price of second hand merchant shipping these days why should Korea/Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran (insert your favourite prejudice)not buy a container ship and sail her into The Golden Gate/The Narrows/London River/Sydney Harbour and bang. Just think, no R & D costs on rockets and guidence systems, no need to make the warhead small, light and capable of tolerating the stresses of aceleration and reentry. You can pack it with enough dirty elements such as cobalt to sterilise the area for centuaries. I suspect the technology is within the competance of any physisist and engineer. Thats what frightens me. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Linda Kelly Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:10 PM Actually Mary I would have said that the world is more likely to be destabilized through the efforts of those not in power and wishing they were, or individuals who have fundemental beliefs and are prepared to die for them. No missile system is likely to protect us from that.Hell, why build one at all - just allow your enemy to host the next Olympics and that will see them off! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Peter T. Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:08 PM It is hard to dignify this with the term pathetic. The objection has never been that it wouldn't work, it is that it is a stupid, insane, strategy. Americans have pissed away the chance to eliminate whole swathes of the nuclear enterprise in favour of this nonsense. From 1991 to 2001 we had the best chance to ratchet down the nuclear enterprise -- no enemies, total American superiority, and the whole thing was lost. This is driven by shortsightedness, paranoia and arms industries in every state of the U.S. You are creating the very enemies you are trying to protect yourself against. It is complete insanity. Generations yet unborn will curse the ground this American government and the last walks upon for not making the effort to be leaders in reaching towards partial global disarmament. And now the government wants to break the nuclear test ban treaty. It is completely on the loose, totally irresponsible. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: The Walrus Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:04 PM DougR, P;ease note that I do not intend to insult anyone or start anykind of flame war. There are two factors to be remembered before claiming that any system works 1) Repeatablility - Can you do it again (and again) with the same kit. 2) Reproducability - Can another operator, using the same technique reproduce your results. From your post, at present there is, at best, a 50% sucess rate. Please wait until they can do it a few times without missing before declaring the whole thing a success (It could just be a luck). Regards Walrus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 15 Jul 01 - 04:02 PM Doug, the real problem, as I see it, is that if we do develop an anti missle system, it will scare the hell out of all those countries that dont trust us! We will be invulnerable! We can do as we please, including invasion of any country that has what we want. Do you think Russia is going to stand by and watch us become invulnerable? Hell NO! they will hit us before it is in place. This is going to really destablize the balance of terror. It is not protection..it is madness! Foreign Mudcatters, Let's hear from you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: toadfrog Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:56 PM Y'know, I hate to sound cynical, but my feeling is, that "bull's eye" belongs in a BS thread. Governments who want a particular result from a "test" know how to get them. The exception - the Billy Mitchell story - proves the rule. The reasons for building SDI have every thing to do with domestic politics and nothing whatsoever to do with whether it works, or whether it protects the country. It's pork. It appeals to the ultra-nationalist bubbah ("Regan Democrat") vote. It helps impoverish the government, and so "keeps government off our backs." Which means, in good English it helps destroy any social program which might help poor or working people. That satisfies both wings of the Republican Party. It satisfies the country-club wing, because a an insecure labor force is thought to be a docile labor force. And it satisfies the Religious Right, because it puts poor people at the mercy of charity, and so forces them into church. In other words, having "defeated Communism" the Republicans have set out to prove Karl Marx was right. But the greatest problem with the SDI program is that it greatly increases the danger of war. This is so because in order to whip up a threat that will justify the program, the United States must find ways to make enemies, or in any case refrain from easing tensions with the "rogue states." On top of that, there is also the serious risk that some nut may come to power who imagines that the Star Wars Program makes it safe to throw his weight around, and so abuses his power that the U.S. becomes the Rogue State. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: mg Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:49 PM trust me. If a missle comes your way, you are going to wish you had kept the crumbling school and got the missle defense instead. It is not an either-or situation. We need all of the above. We spend huge amounts on social pathology. We should get some prisoners rehabbing schools, growing food etc. Get the schools to turn out people capable of earning at least a modest salary, with some salable skills so they have no excuse to turn to crime. Send a strong message to young women that having children without benefit of marriage is hurting the children, and causing society to take care of able-bodied people who should have deferred reproduction, and at the same time short-changed those who could not help the circumstances they were in. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Linda Kelly Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:39 PM One missile does not a defence system make. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:35 PM Doug R For that sort of money you could bribe most antisocial governments not to fire the missile anyway - Though I suspect when, and when not if, a terrorist weapon of mass destruction is released it will be deliverd as an anonomous container on a ship or truck. Gareth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:26 PM And this launch only cost $10,000,000. Could have gone to feed hungry, house homeless, cure AIDS or cancer or MS or..., improve the environment, research non-fossil fuels, update crumbling schools, fight drug addiction and/or drug trade, send a few kids to college, etc... Am I the only one who thinks thatonce that first missile is launched, there won't be much left of the world worth living in, whether it hits the US or not? |
|
Subject: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:09 PM Some time ago we had a discussion the Missile defense system Bush is going to build for the U. S. and it's allies. Most mudcatters seemed to believe that such a system would never work. I thought I would bring this fact to the attention of those folks, if they missed the article in today's newspaper. Quoting from "The Arizona Republic." "A Pentagon "kill vehicle" located and destroyed a dummy missile warhead in outer space above the central Pacific Ocean on Saturday evening, giving a new boost to the administration's ambitious and controversial missile defense program. The 120-pound interceptor, launched atop a missile from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, found the target 144 miles into outer space, and at 8:09 p.m. Arizona time pulverized it in a blinding flash of light. The target missile had been launched about 7:40p.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California." This success means that two of four flight tests of the anti-missile system conducted since October 1999 have hit their targets." Can't be done? Still think so? :>) DougR |