Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (130141)	12/28/2000 3:46:22 PM
From: richard surckla	Respond to of 1572172

Weeny Guy... "Sadly, we're probably doomed to waste a lot more money in the coming years on this idiocy..." Talk about being stupid and ignorant! You just glow with stupidity and ignorance when you make statements like that. The same thing was said about every invention that you can think about, which are to numerous to list here. Just think about it. Start with the hammer and move forward in time. Appears your booze and sheep are putting bubbles into your "think tank"

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (130141)	12/28/2000 7:00:53 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572172

Dear Daniel Schuh: Limited ICBM Defense is not only possible but, doable. The USSR has deployed a system for the defense of Moscow. There is no public record of its effectiveness. We had a proposed system to handle missile defense of say Washington for a limited strike using a missile known as Nike-Zeus. Its effectiveness was never tested to my knowledge. It was scrapped after the ABM treaty was signed. Whatever its effectiveness was at that time, it probably would have failed in the current role due to effective counter measures employed since then. Current ICBMs and their sub launched counterparts SLBMs, yield warheads that are quite capable of being tracked. Once tracked, any object in a ballistic trajectory can be intercepted. The probability of interception goes up greatly if, some form of tracking of the object can be done within the interceptor which would correct for any errors, whether planned or inherent, as the range becomes small. This would allow the initial system to have much looser tolerances for actual target velocity and direction. In other words, the part of the system that directs the interceptor to the target does not need to have high accuracy (read costs and difficulty) of the relative positions. Such an intercept system is not very scalable as the interceptor is expensive. A more scable system would have a cheap non seeking interceptor (bullet) but the requirements for the tracker are much higher (error stddev must be less than 1/3 the size of the warhead and the bullet) and thus more difficult. Space Command currently tracks many targets the size of a bolt which is much smaller than any nuclear reentry vehicle. Thus, a track of the target is possible and tests have shown that this is being done with the current missile defense system. The intercept or has been shown to be able to be launched in the direction of the target. The only thing that did not happen is the actual intercept (bad timing or position is not clear from what I have read). This shows that you are wrong about it can not possibly work. Thus, the scheme is not harebrained. You object to its cost. There are some things that you think of as perfectly justified where, I think its money being wasted down a black hole. If you can't take the comments to your objections seriously, don't post them. If you don't like the subject, too bad! Get rid of the name calling in any case, it just proves your immaturity. Pete