’)Turn it on and pray.
The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system hasn’t successfully intercepted a missile since October of 2002. Five of its last ten flight tests, it flunked. And the last two times it tried to hit an oncoming missile, the interceptor didn’t even leave the ground. Things have gotten so bad that the Missile Defense Agency’s independent review team concluded last year that more tests may only undermine the GMD’s value as a deterrent.
But spending any federal money on alternative fuel research would be a waste of time and energy. Goddamn hippies.
So, a missile is headed for LA. What is better: 1. A 50% chance of downing that missile? 2. A 0% chance of downing that missile?
Second question.
What is the natural history of technology?
1. A progressive, step-wise improvement in efficiency, accuracy, cost, utility?
2. Status quo with little change over the life of the technology?
Third Question.
1. If you never try, what are your chances of suceeding?
Please use blue or black ink. You have one hour to complete this test.
Unfortunately for “Dr”P, the success rate is nowhere near 50%–it’s much closer to 10%. Additionally, hostile nations understand “Star Wars” can be overwhelmed simply by putting more missiles into the air; thus, there’s an incentive to build more nukes. More nukes mean a greater chance of mishap or the possibility one gets into the wrong hands.
Jadegold…
I think you’re forgetting that this technology, at least at this stage, is intended for precisely such a threat as North Korea, which may at some point be capable of launching a handful of missiles in an act of madness. Responding with a workable shield could save the lives of millions on both sides.
Once (if) North Korea or other rogue nations develop the capability to launch a credible, large scale nuclear barrage, then they will subject themselves to the traditional deterrent that has served us well for decades: the assurance that we would launch a successfull retaliatory strike.
I would love if the technology worked. But it doesn’t work. It’s a government boondoggle with a sense of false safety to it with defense contractors making out like bandits. While I would debate the effectiveness of a missile shield versus other more useful deterrents (a 100% effective shield would not have prevented 9/11), if we’re going to have one it should be a little better than “I hope” – especially when we’ve spent so much money on it. This is not a partisan issue, it’s one of common sense.
And can America realistically threaten someone with our nuclear arsenal? I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki say yes, and the Soviet Union could similarly give you a clue about the extent of our arsenal.
No missile defense!
No defense against terrorists!
No War on Terror!
You finally noticed that all of these were talking points having nothing to do with reality?
What took you so long?
Not only doesn’t it work, OW, but the reasoning behind it is specious (at best).
Look at scratch’s ‘logic’: we need ‘missile defense’ because North Korea is more likely to shoot nukes at us if they have fewer of them. In the unlikely event that dirt-poor, backward North Korea develops a massive arsenal of long-range nukes, then we won’t need ‘missile defense’ anyway since then they’ll be less likely to shoot them at us.
This is what passes for thinking among the Cro-Mag wingnut crowd. What a bunch of idiotic chicken-sh-ts.
No missile defense!
No defense against terrorists!
No War on Terror!
We be bad!
“Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up”
Thomas Edison
Oliver and alex are the same guys who said “This automobile thing will never catch on…”
Whatever…..
Actually, Repack, I was parroting the “Cry of the Leftwing Dingbat”!
the problem with autocratic dictators, and muslim fanatics is they really don’t care about annihiliation, so MAD doesn’t actually work.
The real question is, when N. Korea pops off an ICBM, do we really know where it is going? What if it “accidentally” lands on Fairbanks?
No technology is perfect when it first comes out. Surgeons used to kill more people than they saved doing a number of procedures. This Luddite view that if it isn’t perfect, it isn’t worth working on is just silly.
“Surgeons used to kill more people than they saved doing a number of procedures.”
Some still do, right, pedro?
If the system was proven to be accurate, I have no problem with it. But there is definitely a wide range of opinion on the accuracy of the system.
However one should also consider the cost versus benefit compared to a cheaper system, say mutually assured destruction (MAD). And one must address the following questions, irregardless of whether such a system is fully deployed.
1. Are the N Koreans going to risk total annihilation in retaliation for a preemptive strike?
2. Does one really believe that the PRC is going to launch an attack on the US for retaliating against N Korea?
However, they decide I only hope that calmer heads prevail in the long run and this can be resolved by peaceful means.
Alex….
Um, no. North Korea is more likely to fire just one or two missiles…a scenario ideal for a defensive shield. Should Korea develop a more robust capability, then other deterants would be more suitable.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with Oliver’s “logic”…that any defense that would not have prevented 9/11 is not worth having.
If it landed on Fairbanks it won’t be an accident but a big mistake by them as they stand to lose a lot more in the long run. I didn’t say such a system isn’t worth working on, but an overoptimistic view of its success on the other hand could lead to tragedy.
My predictions:
1. North Korea may or may not launch this test, but if they do…
2. The U.S. will not fire an interceptor at it,
3. Oliver and others will claim that it was because we knew it wouldn’t work, and…
4. They will be at least partly right (another factor being that the test itself really isn’t a threat to us.)
Now, if the system was to the point where it was really reliable, it would be a nice smackdown to intercept the test. Won’t happen this time.
Pedro your hypocrisy shines here. When it comes to missile defense you can’t explain enough about how technological and scientific advancement requires lots of little steps towards the ultimate goal so it’s way, way too ” early to start criticizing the program.
But when Oliver proposes a Mahattan Project-style project for research into alternative fuels what is your response:
“… the fallacy here is that fundamental physics problems are going to be solved by brute force& .it doesn t work that way … Unfortunately Ollie s hero is Superman, and I doubt he ever took a real science class in his life, yet he believes we just aren t trying hard enough to overcome these fundamental physics issues& :
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/04/21/free-idea-for-a-democrat/#comment-32118
You’re an idiot.
Actually if we were going to attempt a takedown, it might well be using a ship-based system rather than the alaska or CONUS systems.
Paul, stick to what you know would ya? B grade movies I assume….
Hold on, everybody.
Let’s look at the little snip OW gave us and render it into plain English.
“Undermine the GMS’s value as a deterrent?”
In other words, if we keep testing it, everybody’s gonna know it doesn’t work!
Actually, Repack, I was parroting the Cry of the Leftwing Dingbat !
I forgot that the cry of the rightwing dingbat is:
“War is peace.”
“Freedom is slavery.”
“Up is the new down.”
This whole discussion is ridiculous and the Bushies have raised it solely for the PR effect.
North Korea is unlikely to launch a long range missile anywhere near us and, even if they did, we will NOT seek to intercept it and expose that our missile defense has a 0% chance of success.
It has NEVER succeeded – not once – under real world circumstances and has an abysmal success rate even under the most meticulously fixed settings.
This is pure fantasy meant to serve Bush’s PR interests. On the other hand, Kahalilzad’s memo on the true REALITY in Iraq undercuts Bush. Guess which is getting greater coverage in the traditional media?
I was going to say what frameone said but he said it.
Rolling out a missile defense shield that doesn’t work: brilliant
Attempting to put our nation’s collective minds together to solve the energy problem: madness
One day we’re going to get to the see the inner workings of the conservative mind.
Won’t be pretty.
To use your analogy though, it would be as if someone created a car with no wheels and without an engine and assumed if they just made a lot of them at some point the things got to run.
Of course, everyone is overlooking the fundamental difference between missile defense and the original Manhattan Project, and Oliver’s proposal: the first two have clearly-defined goals, while the third is vague fantasy.
Missile-defense system: develop a method to intercept an incoming ballistic missile and prevent it from striking its target.
Manhattan Project: develop a weapon using the energy of nuclear fission.
Oliver’s fantasy: develop an alternative to our dependence on foreign oil that doesn’t involve domestic oil, coal, nuclear, hydropower that might threaten an endangered species of fish, windmills that might afflict the view from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry’s beachfront property, natural gas that could go boom, or anything else he might find icky. Oh, and it should also cure acne, halitosis, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
If the goal was “develop a safer form of nuclear power that doesn’t generate so much toxic, radioactive waste,” or “develop wind power in places where the actual, measurable impact will be minimal and the process will be cost-effective,” then it might work. But “get a bunch of smart people together and make them come up with SOMETHING” is pretty much doomed to failure. Give people vague goals, you’ll get back vague answers.
J.
Historical reality check: the only nation that has ever deployed nuclear weapons against human targets (civilian ones, at that) wasn’t an openly fascist, communist, or ‘Islamic extremist’ dictatorship. It was a self-proclaimed democracy. Since then, many nations have acquired nukes, and none has used them. Some have even discarded them after waking up to the utter impracticality of having them.
Now, let’s do another reality check: from the following list of nations, which one has carried out an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country in the last ten years? Iran, North Korea, United States.
Now, which of the three nations mentioned above has openly considered developing and using ‘tactical’ nuclear devices?
Let’s sum up: the U.S. is the only nation ever to have used nukes; it is currently involved in an illegal occupation of Iraq (which it invaded illegally and without provocation); the U.S. has openly talked about developing ‘tactical, low-yield’ nukes for use against future enemies. Given those conditions, doesn’t a ‘missile defense shield’ seem more part of an offensive strategy than a defense against unprovoked attacks by ‘rogue’ nuclear states?
The waste of my tax dollars notwithstanding, I’m glad that the technology won’t work. I don’t want to be party to the next act of nuclear genocide. All this blubbering about nuclear danger is just cowardice. The biggest true danger is in the current White House, where imperial ambition has eclipsed all decency and good sense.
Of course Paul and Oliver have never taken a hard science course in their life, so don’t understand the difference between a ballistics problem (albeit a complicated one) and quantum mechanics problem.
One is a relatively simple mechanics issue of two moving objects. The other requires somehow twisting the most fundamental elements in the universe into giving up more juice when we squeeze them.
One problem is solved on a daily basis in physics classrooms the world over. The other required epiphanies by some of the most brilliant minds of the century…who, by the way, were working as a patent clerk, third class in an office in Bern Switzerland.
Both will require tremendous effort, but only one is likely to be solved using a brute force approach.
Alex…
Your analysis is a useful tool for demonstrating that the U.S. is the real bad guy here, but it does not address the nature of an actual nuclear threat in today’s world. The “many nations”–about 8 at last count?– who have acquired nuclear weapons since we used ours in a world war 60 years ago have been, for the most part, stable players in the world community. For the foreseeable future, the threat of nuclear weapons comes not from a large scale barrage in the Cold War model, but from, as I said in an earlier post, and “act of madness” from someone who has a handful of them. If someone were to launch a couple missiles out of desparation, anger, or miscalculation, I for one would rather counter with an interceptor than a counterstrike against the people of that country.
“Oh, and it should also cure acne, halitosis, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.”
The idiots respond. (Oh and Jay, please try to refrain from injecting your personal hygiene needs and fantasies into the discussion.)
As expected the science they support is reasonable and practical and can be accomplished by hard work while the science they don’t is the stuff of fantasy and miraculous epiphany. Yup, no one ever did a calculation or tested a theory on the way to the nuclear bomb or nuclear power, they just sat around hoping for epiphanies.
When “Star Wars” was first proposed (by a former B-movie actor turned President) it was met with the same skepticism that research into alternative fuels has today. Reagan responded then with the same attitude that alternative fuel supporters have today:
NEW VISION FOR REAGAN
The New York Times, March 24, 1983, Thursday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 21, Column 1; Foreign Desk
“The President, and the remarks made earlier by his aides in elaborating his speech, did not assert that a workable defense against nuclear missile attack was possible in the near future. Only about $1 billion is now spent annually by the Department of Defense on research and development of ”ballistic missile defense” and associated technology – a figure that would be considerably higher if the technology was further advanced.
But a theme of the President’s speech was that a number of technologies had reached a level of sophistication that made it ”reasonable” to begin a more concerted effort to develop defenses that may take years and even decades to become operational.”
Do you want to know what this newly sophisticate technologies were? Talk about vague, shot in the dark (no pun intended) beginnings:
REAGAN PROPOSES U.S. SEEK NEW WAY TO BLOCK MISSILES
The New York Times, March 24, 1983, Thursday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 6; National Desk
“White House officials said the new program might involve lasers, microwave devices, particle beams and projectile beams. These devices, most of which are in a very early stage of development, in theory could be directed from satellites, airplanes or land-based installations to shoot down missiles in the air.
Scientists have felt the beam defenses could revolutionize the concept of nuclear strategy because, up to now, the idea of shooting missiles down after they were launched has been deemed impractical.”
Laser beams. They were initially talking about laser beams. And what have got now? Missiles.
And talk about vague, Reagan officials were not only met with skepticism, they wouldn’t even call the idea, announced in a prime time speech, “a plan or a proposal”:
AIDES URGED REAGAN TO POSTPONE ANTIMISSILE IDEAS FOR MORE STUDY
The New York Times, March 25, 1983, Friday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 4; National Desk
Some American scientists said the President’s proposal might never be technically feasible but would be strategically ”dangerous” if it was ever made workable. Other scientists defended the concept. (Page A8.)
… The senior officials were careful not to portray the President’s call for a ”comprehensive and intensive effort to define a longterm research and development program” as even a plan or a proposal.
They said Mr. Reagan signed a formal directive today, calling for a first phase of intensive study of the idea, followed by a second phase of recommendations and possible implementation of new programs. But they emphasized that it was still only an idea, not a program. One referred to it as a way of getting ”attention, engendering a debate, posing of an alternative” to exclusive reliance on offensive missiles.
The officials also made clear they were aware that the President’s idea would lead to debate about nuclear deterrence and arms control. They did not pretend to have answers to fundamental questions raised by Mr. Reagan’s challenge to the scientific community to find a way of protecting the United States from a nuclear attack. Among such questions are these:
- Will the proposed strategy violate existing arms limitation treaties, in particular the 1972 agreement limiting Soviet and United States antimissile systems and their development?
- Can a defensive system be devised that cannot be overcome by the offense?
- Will deterrence be enhanced or undermined by such a system, which would allow one side to strike first and limit the effects of a retaliatory blow? This last is especially important because such a system could theoretically be developed by the Soviet Union as well as by the United States.
The senior officials responded simply that these questions would have to be explored and that there was time to do so. They stressed that they were talking about such technologies as laser beams and other forms of directed energy, which probably will not be ready for use as weapons until after the year 2000.”
Oh hey, back to the lasers. Ready by 2000. How’d that work out? Oh and was Regan met by any scientific doubt? Of course. And what was the White House? To keep their idea as vague and amorphous as possible by suggesting that while the goel was missile defense any number of different technologies would be looked into from particle lasers in space to more traditional ground based missile systems:
SCIENTISTS DUBIOUS OVER MISSILE PLAN: Some consider it Technically Unqorkable – Others View It as Strategic Danger
The New York Times, Mar 25, 1983; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2003)
pg. A8
Some scientists said today that President Reagan’s proposal to develop a defense against nuclear sttack may never be technicallt feasible, but that it would be strategically ‘dangerous’ if it was ever made wrokable. Other scientists defended the concept.
….
Dr. Panofsky and a number of other figures in American science said they doubted that scientists could be marshalled into an effort resembling the Manhattan Project that produced the first nuclear weapon in World War II.
In his speech, Mr. Reagan said he was seeking a ‘vision of hope’ that nuclear weapons could made ‘impotent’ by the development of a practical defense shield. Aides said the President was not betting on any single technology but wanted intensified research both in space-based weapons that might shoot down missiles and land-based anti-missile systems. The President said it might require decades to achieve workable systems.”
The bottom line is that idiots like pedro and Jay support the science that suits their ideology and not the science that doesn’t. But they don’t argue the politics of their positions. Not at all. They instead distort history and science both in an effort to deceive and obfuscate. Idiots both.
Alex, could you move a little to the left and repeat that? Say, all the way to Seattle or San Diego? Show the courage of your convictions and plant yourself firmly in that missile’s target circle.
And frame, despite your hysterical polemics, long-winded screeds, personal assaults, and utterly irrelevant quotes, I repeat: both the Manhattan Project and missile defense had clearly defined goals. The Manhattan Project succeeded; missile defense has not yet. But as drpedro points out, missile defense is simple ballistics; we know it’s theoretically possible. The key is to find a way to bring the theory to reality consistently enough to be feasible? What are the clearly-defined goals of Oliver’s grand proposals?
But I’m sure you’ll ignore that question and simply resort to more crap-flinging. You play to your strengths.
J.
“What are the clearly-defined goals of Oliver s grand proposals?”
Um, Jay, the clearly defined goal is to develop an energy alternative to oil. There are different ways of doing that, just as there are different ways of shooting a missile out of the sky. As you’ll note above, Reagan didn’t lock himself into any definite solution to the MD problem: space-based lasers, land-based or sea-based missiles, boost phase/mid phase/terminal phase systems etc. He just stated the goal and threw a shit load of money and resources into finding the best solution. Remember, at the time he only wanted to offer a “vision of hope.” You can’t get vaguer than that but we went ahead and started spending billions of dollars anyway. Of course since you didn’t bother reading any of the articles I quoted you don’t this so you’re free to simply make shit up. I, on the other hand, try to stick to the facts:
“When it comes to Ballistic Missile Defense (or National Missile Defense, or “Star Wars”, or whatever it’s being called today), most people think the main difficulty is one of technology — that the problem of “hitting a bullet with a bullet”, as the process of striking an extremely fast-moving inbound missile with a 1.5 meter “kill vehicle” is often analogized, is just a really difficult physics problem that will be solved with enough trial and error. While this is true — to date, only about half of the tests have successfully hit their targets in heavily controlled experiments — there is actually a deeper, more fundamental problem with the system that might be impossible to solve no matter how good the technology gets.”
http://joshfriess.blogspot.com/2005/06/essential-problem-with-ballistic.html
Well, frame, you can train a dog not to crap on the carpet, but you can’t get him to understand why he shouldn’t crap on the carpet. You can throw all the facts you want at these winger trolls, but they’ll never give in. This kind of aggressive stupidity is why the last two presidential elections were close enough to steal; if the facts don’t fit your sh-tty worldview, discard the facts.
Excuse me? Which hypocrisy is that?
I my mind the whole Star Wars saga was summed up by Einstein
“Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them”
Much as with our liberating Iraq, missile defense is meant to prevent the problem in the first place.
So let me get this straight Paul. In your opinion…..
In the case of star wars, throwing money at the problem didn’t work.
Therefore, we should throw money at the problem of alternative energy sources?
Is that the twisted logic you are now using?
No pedro. I’m simply highlighting your hypocrisy and idiocy.
Oh how quickly they forget their own bullshit.
You’re all for full government funding of missile defense but against a similar effort for researching alternative fuels. Why? Who the fuck knows. Because both require high investments in money and time, both have high technical and scientific hurdles to overcome and both are meant to solve/alleviate problems.
So, a missile is headed for LA. What is better: 1. A 50% chance of downing that missile? 2. A 0% chance of downing that missile?
What is more realistic;
1. A 1% chance of downing that missle?
2. A 0% chance?
Much as with our liberating Iraq, missile defense is meant to prevent the problem in the first place.
Riiiight, that’ll work. Like putting signs on the windows of your house; “This house protected by XYZ Security” even though it isn’t.
I had an idea similar to this about illegals sneaking across the border; put up signs saying “Minefield ahead”. No point in actually laying mines, but the sign is the deterrent, right?
Pedro, you keep saying that the technology hasn’t evolved enough yet, as in this statement, One is a relatively simple mechanics issue of two moving objects.
They’ve been working on this since Fonzie jumped the shark and it still doesn’t work. So maybe it ain’t so simple after all. Technology has advanced exponentially since they started, and it still doesn’t work.
“Show the courage of your convictions and plant yourself firmly in that missile s target circle.”
Oh and Jay, I live in Los Angeles so you can shove your bullshit up your ass.
Then again, as usual, someone answers you directly with the facts and you scamper off like the gutless turd that you are. See you real soon.
frame, the reason I tend to stop arguing with you is your idea of “arguing” is to toss a bunch of insulting shit at me, mixed with one or two cogent arguments. I get tired of typing with one hand and pinching my nose shut with the other. If you actually ARGUED, you might actually win one, instead of being the only one dumb enough to stay standing in a field full of shit you’ve flung.
But I’ll actually take a gesture towards civility here, and answer you:
1) The “move to the target” remark was clearly directed towards Alex.
2) The basic principle of missile defense has precedents that trace back — successfully — for over 50 years. We first started shooting down flying objects with guided missiles in the 1950’s. Missiles, I might add, launched from either the ground or aircraft. We have progressed from shooting down aircraft to missiles since then, as technology has improved. The Standard and Patriot missiles have an anti-missile capability, just to name two.
3) There are two fundamental differences between ballistic missiles and non-ballistic missiles. The first makes intercepting them easier: they do not maneuver or evade, their course is purely ballistic. Dr. Isaac Newton is in charge of their guidance. It is very easy to quickly extrapolate their course.
The second difference is the challenging one: their speed. They move a whole order of magnitude faster than any aircraft or non-ballistic missile. That problem is the real challenge: to develop an interceptor that can fly to the missile’s flight path and detonate at the right time.
The technical challenges for such an interceptor are, as I understand them:
1) Have a heavy enough warhead to deflect, incapacitate, or destroy the incoming warhead;
2) Be light enough to fly up and intercept the missile at the speed required;
3) Have enough fuel to intercept the missile before it gets too close to its target;
4) Carry sufficient on-board sensors to detect the warhead at a good distance;
5) Carry sufficient computing power to detonate itself in the fraction-of-a-second window when the warhead is in range.
The problem is that all the things it needs — fuel, explosives, guidance, fuses, sensors — all add weight. Increased weight means decreased range and speed. The problem is to find just the right balance. Improvements in technology could make the electronics smaller and lighter. Improvements in fuel and motor efficiency can reduce the weight of propulsion. Improvements in the sensors can reduce the necessary size of the warhead. Improvements in explosive material can reduce the amount of explosive needed to produce the same blast.
All these changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary. The designers of the Nike Ajax missile would have no problem understanding the principles of a Patriot or a Hawk, because it is essentially the same thing — just with 50+ years of continuous improvement.
Have we hit the wall in missile development? Have we reached the point where they simply cannot be improved to where they can intercept ballistic missiles? I don’t know. I’m no rocket scientist. But I don’t think we have.
Now, I spent one paragraph addressing your odious tendencies, then gave you a metric ton of substance. If you’re interested in discussing this matter civilly, please do so. If you want to continue to fling feces, I will cheerfully leave you as the undisputed King Shit of Turd Mountain. Enjoy your throne.
J.
Missile defense works fine, as long as you are shooting for a 50% success rate and you know well in advance when the initial missile attack is going to occur and where it is to be directed. It’s just another example of how wishful thinking is a major part of Republican ‘planning’.
Ducking and running from the actual queston at hand is not serious debate, Jay. The claim was made by YOU that Oliver’s suggestion for a Manhattan-style project for alternative energy was a “vague fantasy” as compared to the missile defense program first proposed by Reagan. You say this in utter ignorance of the details of Regan’s original proposal which was, in his own words, little more than a “vision of hope” upon which he was willing to spend BILLIONS of dollars to pursue research into multiple and ill-defined experimental technologies included space-based lasers.
Oh and look, Bush takes the same fundamental approach:
“President Bush has declared that he wants “layered” missile defenses. Basically, this means using multiple methods for shooting down missiles in various stages of flight in order to improve the odds of actually hitting them. Over the years the Defense Department has studied a variety of systems that would try to engage incoming missiles at all stages of flight.”
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so02forden
So research across multiple approaches and technologies is okay for missile defense but researching a “layered” approach to alternative fuels is sheer fantasy land? You should read the whole article because it raises a number of other difficulties to missile defense that you overlook while fundamentally suggesting that it’s possible if not extremely challenging.
Of couse did I ever say it wasn’t possible? No. I’m simply pointing out your utter hypocrisy in support for one Manhattan-Style project that began as a vague “vision of hope” based on experimental technologies while dismissing another as fantasy. You say this even though you have overlooked one of the most serious challenges to any credible missile defense program: That the current planned system for ground-based midcourse interceptors is useless in the face of an enemy with half a brain and access to mylar balloons. As the blog post I linked to above suggests:
“Any rogue nation smart enough to develop weapons of mass destruction is also going to be smart enough to include decoys in their missiles …”
Here’s the link again because you, champion of serious debate, clearly ignored it the first time around: http://joshfriess.blogspot.com/2005/06/essential-problem-with-ballistic.html
This guy is apparenlty studying to be a rocket scientist and he raises a number of interesting questions about the feasibility of missile defense. In your list of “technical challenges” as you understood them you completely overlooked the challenge of distinguishing simple, relatively rudimentary decoy devices from actual warheads. Such willingness to live in ignorance is much like when the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency rigged tests in 1997 to make it look like the system worked against decoys. If not for the conscience of three whistle-blowers the Pentagon might have got away with it. Here’s an article by an MIT professor detailing the scam and discussing the larger challenges facing missile defense research:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/etc/postol.html
“President Bush’s latest proposal does not include this high-resolution radar, making tracking and identification of enemy missiles harder and delaying the interception time. But even with the more advanced original system, big problems surround the scenario. For starters, an adversary could alter the reflections from decoys and warheads by covering surfaces and seams with wires, metal foil or radar-absorbing materials. These simple strategies would render the radar unable to reliably sort out warheads from their armadas of decoys.
Compounding this problem is a simple fact: in the near vacuum of space, a feather and a rock move at the same speed, since there is no air drag to cause the lighter object to slow up relative to its heavier companion. This basic vulnerability makes it even easier for an adversary to devise decoys that will look like warheads to radar or an infrared telescope observing them from long range.”
Now I’m no rocket scientist either. But that’s why I read what rocket scientists write to understand the issues involved here. According to this guy we’re left with boost phase or terminal phase options which present not only huge technical challenges with still highly limited results but also geo-political challenges as well. Accoridng to this guys bost phase systems would require either ships in constant patrol off the coast of countries like North Korea or would require land-based silos in countries like Turkey to thwart middle-east -based threats. We couldn’t get Turkey to grant us flyover permission for our invasion of Iraq. You think they’re going to let us put missile silos in their soil?
But despite all these challenges you support throwing billions of dollars into the slim chance of producing a workable but highly limited missile defense system while dismissing outright as a fantasy any such similar funding for alternative energy research which could free us from dependence on oil and improve the lives of billions of people. That makes you an idiot and a hack.
“1) The move to the target remark was clearly directed towards Alex.”
And might I add, here I was thinking you referring to Alex’s IDEAS which I happen to share. Since I share his IDEAS and live in Los Angeles your comment could also apply to me hence: Go Fuck Yourself.
I’m glad, however, that you are now admitting that your were attacking Alex personally under the assumption that someone’s geographical location in relation to North Korea holds total, determinant sway over their opinions on American military policy. Under this thinking, everyone in California, Washington and Oregon must be simply quivering in fear over the threat of a North Korean nuclear sneak attack and in full support of Bush’s missile defense program. Idiot.
“That makes you an idiot and a hack.”
“Go Fuck Yourself.”
“Idiot.”
Congratulations, frame. You apparently really wanted the crown of King Shit of this particular Turd Mountain. Well, you just took it.
J.
Jay, you deserve nothing less than contempt for the dishonest shit you peddle on a daily basis to a gullible audience. You dishonest dodge in this thread is duly noted.
Jay you are consistently ill-informed and consistently dishonest. You are the eptiome of the right wing blowhard that has corrupted our national debate. Again, I meet you as I always have with the level of respect you deserve. You’ve always been an idiot now, of course, it’s clear that you’re also kind of whiny.
Duly noted? Fuck that, frame, print it out and hang it on your wall. It’ll be the last time I respond seriously to you. I don’t put up with that kind of abuse from people I know, and I’m sure as hell not going to continue to take it from you.
Tell me, frame, have you EVER contributed ANYTHING to ANY BLOG besides mindlessly defending Oliver and rabidly attacking his detractors? And is the pay any good? It’d have to be, ‘cuz there’s not enough money in the world that’d get me to do the whoring you do.
I’ve wasted way, way too much time on you, you pathetic little guttersnipe. I have obligations of my own, and they don’t involve taking your bullshit and weeding through the gratuitous insults (and they weren’t even ORIGINAL, just the same litany of two or three over and over again, so they even lacked entertainment value) to find a grain or two of factual material worth rebutting.
Enough’s enough? More like “too much.”
Oliver, enjoy the little echo chamber you’ve developed. I hope you enjoy your choir of rabid asswipes, because they’re pretty much the sort you deserve.
At least at Wizbang, we have a few dissenting voices who have mastered the art of civil discourse — unlike frame, who strikes me as someone in dire need of housebreaking.
Just make sure you have your shots up to date, Oliver — because these are the types that tend to turn on you.
J.