Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (206130)	10/16/2006 8:08:32 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) of 281500

So you count whom you can count and argue about the rest. This is such a very good point. Why do we need such a tight count? Are we so worried about overspending on the homeless?! If the problem is too big, should we move on to something more manageable? Speaking of the homeless, I think there is something to be said for spending some money on BMD. I had a thought from a previous discussion of his topic: getting a few interceptors that could be targeted at a rouge missile (from N Korea, for example) allows us to avoid nuking the originators into rubble and then turning the rubble into ash. A “working” system doesn’t necessarily mean thwarting a full-scale launch by the Russians or Chinese. Back in the ‘80s, the thinking was that if we ever actually got near that point of a “perfect” BMD system, the enemy would need to launch their missiles first because if they waited, we could then “perfectly” defend against a counter strike. Oddly, we wouldn’t want a perfect system. If one missile had a 50% chance of hitting the target, one would send up 3 or 4 to make sure. This seems much preferable to the alternative. I don’t think we could realistically discuss the viability of a small system because so much of the capabilities are classified. However, there was one successful test back in 1984. From my recollection, they tried to get a cheaper version of the system – something like $1m per missile. They got nowhere, AFAIK. I think that they’re trying again because of the computing power available in modern CPUs and better technology in infrared CCD cameras. The basic question is one of cost, and not the underlying algorithms or physics of the problem. I will concede that they could squeeze every nickel out of the program as possible.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next