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: steve harris who wrote (641903)	10/10/2004 10:26:25 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

... If the system is able to pass an honest test (which it hasn't yet), then it might have a chance. Except for one point: defeating the defense system is FAR cheaper (and doesn't require much high tech wizardry) then the cost of an effective defense system. For example --- since the system is blind without satellite launch warning --- the "keg of nails" approach that North Korea has talked about would work: Launch a low-tech 'keg of nails' into a counter-rotating orbit to our early warning satellites, then explode it. Kinetic impact destroys the satelittes (and keeps destroying any new ones launched for decades)... then the aggressor can launch an attack and the missile defense system is blind to stopping it. Another example is to overwhelm the interceptors with decoys. (The system can't effectively discriminate between the real warheads and dozens of decoys.) Now, I'm FOR missile defense if the system can be made effective, and if it's cost-effective compared to our other defense choices. But that's FAR from being demonstrated yet....