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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (368223)	3/7/2003 5:32:32 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Secular, re:FOR THOSE WHO QUESTION THE NEED FOR MISSILE DEFENSE: Link please?? As for "rain down" it'd be more like spit, we can of course rain nuclear missiles on them. What exercises? We canceled all the good ones years ago?

To: SecularBull who wrote (368223)	3/7/2003 5:54:46 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

FOR THOSE WHO QUESTION THE NEED FOR MISSILE DEFENSE >>> I don't question the 'need' (it would be a good thing to have if it worked and could be paid for)... I just question the cost effectiveness. >>> It would be cheaper and safer to blow NK off the map pre-emptively before they nuclearize or deploy systems capable of reaching US soil... also anyone else in such a position. >>> Also - according to the CIA - ICBMs from rogue states are not a big threat to us (because of our assured capacity to destroy them utterly in return)... the real threat is nukes smuggled onto shipping containers and such... against which an ABM system is WORTHLESS, and a waste of good money, because there is no 'return address' on them. >>> Anyone really wanting to hurt us would use 'untraceable' means like that to strike us. An ICBM is easily back-traced. Satellites give early warning and the exact launch position, but nukes sneaked into cargo can hurt us badly, and we wouldn't know who to retaliate against. >>> That is why the CIA says they are the greatest threat. >>> And, as to the cost-effectiveness of the system they are building (forgeting for now that it hasn't passed a single honest 'kill' test yet... they keep lowering the testing bar to make it appear that it works): most scientists believe decoys or other low-tech counter measures will always be a more cost effective way to defeat an ABM system (unless directed energy weapons of great power and precision become possible... which they are tens of decades away from being). >>> One of the most effective 'low-tech' countermeasures is one that NK has threatened to use: the infamous 'keg of nails'. >>> All an attacking nation need do is launch 'kegs of nails' into counter-rotating orbits to those of our early warning satelites, and then explode the 'shrapnel bombs'. The tremendous kinetic energy of the 'nails' (or ball bearings, etc.) orbiting counter to our satelites will sweep the skys before them. Take out all the satelites... and make it impossible to deploy others for decades, or even hundreds of years. Launch detection in a timely manner would then be defeated. >>> Yep, ABM... an OK thing to have if it worked (BIG question mark), and if it was cost-effective (i.e., didn't bankrupt us with a multi-trillion cost that sucked all the money away from other, more useful, military defenses.) >>> One more point: in some 40 or 50 years, it should be possible to build a directed-energy based ABM system (a la Reagan's 'Star Wars' concept) that is truly effective. >>> The question is, will we waste trillions on an ineffective system before then that provides no real protection from threats... but mainly serves to enrich defense contractors and provides a false sense of security?