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: combjelly who wrote (491198)	6/27/2009 5:46:33 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574575

That was a satellite intercept. Almost a totally different set of problems. Not quite, there are a few similarities, but... No, not totally -- but there were some differences. For example, the intercept was at 150 miles altitude versus the lower altitude, typically, for the missile situation. And the closing speed was far greater with USA 193 than with a missile. Of course, USA 193 was in orbit, so the point of intercept could be reasonably predicted, that's true. Naysayers have claimed the USA-193 isn't a proof that missile defense works. This is utter nonsense. The claim those naysayers made, way back when, was that "it isn't possible to hit a bullet with a bullet". Well, that is precisely what was done here. It has been argued that the guidance systems were reconfigured and the seeker software was modified, and therefore, USA-193 was not a valid test. This is, of course, utter nonsense -- if anything, these modifications proved the system is more versatile and stable than anyone previously believed. While I can agree there are differences, the idea that it doesn't further prove the system's capability is absurd. If that's not enough for you, keep in mind that there have been numerous successful tests -- including engagements of multiple short-range ballistic missiles. There have also been multiple short-range THAAD intercepts, both in space and atmospheric. To get back to the point, let's remember what you said: "And how would we do that? People here seem to think we have this capability. We don't." Clearly, we do. Now, it may not be perfect, but your statement was wrong, no matter how you try to defend it. We DO have the capability and you said we don't. You can argue there is a chance it won't work, but there is a far greater chance it WILL work. Consider yourself debunked.