PDA

View Full Version : Missle defense for Alaska


peter2002
Dec 17, 2002, 07:48 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has ordered the U.S. military to begin deploying a national missile defense system with 10 interceptor rockets at a base in Alaska by 2004, administration officials said on Tuesday.

The decision, which comes despite last week's failure of an anti-missile test over the Pacific Ocean, was expected to be announced by the White House and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later in the day, the officials told Reuters.

Defense officials, who asked not to be identified, confirmed a report in The Washington Times that Bush was going ahead with an ambitious schedule to field 10 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska, by 2004 and an additional 10 interceptors by 2005 or 2006.

Another Bush administration official said the interceptors could also possibly be deployed at Vandenberg Air Force base in California.

"It's the first deployment of the missile defense system," said the administration official, who asked not to be named. "We're talking about deployment in 2004."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LZBZHCC1UZHIYCRBAELCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=1920093

____________________________________________________

Great, another jobs program for PHds. It is a shame this missle defense doesn't work because of poor technology and decoys. Another boondoggle, but this time we spend hundreds of billions on a lemon.

The only way scientists say missle defense would work is if the missles were tipped with nuclear war heads. The explosion and EMP would destroy any decoys. But that would violate the international treaty against the use of nuclear weapons in space.

Peter

Mr. Anderson
Dec 17, 2002, 08:17 AM
Ah, its basically deterance for North Korea. Its not so much worrying about the Russians, dozens of anti missle missles wouldn't be at all effective. This will make North Korea's job of developing a ICBM system all the more difficult because even if its not perfect, it still might work.

D

conceptdev
Dec 17, 2002, 08:19 AM
Would it not be easier and cheaper to field a weapon that disperses a a cluster of bomblets in a large space that would create a large shockwave and therefore interdict the trajectory of the incomming rocket? This would cover a larger amount of space and get rid of the whole hitting a bullet with a bullet issue. Just an idea.

dobbin
Dec 17, 2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by conceptdev
Would it not be easier and cheaper to field a weapon that disperses a a cluster of bomblets in a large space that would create a large shockwave and therefore interdict the trajectory of the incomming rocket? This would cover a larger amount of space and get rid of the whole hitting a bullet with a bullet issue. Just an idea.

I would imagine that they have looked at all the possibilities and the one they have chosen is the most effective. I believe that the interceptor missiles have no explosives at all and rely on their speed to destroy the target.

In fact I guess (and its only a guess) that it is the huge speeds involved that make only a direct hit effective rather than an explosion nearby.

Still, it will be interesting to see if it works, although I hope it is never tested in anger.

As a political aside, I don't understand how the USA can justify leaving the anti balistic missile treaty (1974?) which bans any country from setting up a missile shield. It is this same treaty and the ideas behind it that the USA uses to criticise other countries that have aspirations to produce ICBMs and nuclear weapons.

I do think that the USA is entirely innocent in its aims, but I can see why some people with a different viewpoint might think the USA wants to have its cake and eat it.

Dobbin

alex_ant
Dec 17, 2002, 01:10 PM
Since this is a rumors site, I want to offer a prediction. The U.S. will be a smoldering wasteland by 2008 (Bush's last year as president after being re-elected by a populace that loves jingoistic catchphrases).

"Let's deploy a vast missile interception system that will cost tens -- or, knowing us, maybe hundreds -- of billions of dollars and may or may not work, knowing full well that this system of missile defense is by its very nature a system of missile offense due to the balance of power it tips. Did we mention it would be far easier and more desirable for any enemy to attack us in any way other than with an ICBM? Or that it would violate the ABM tready we signed and frequently harass other countries for shrugging off? Alright then, let's get on it!

P.S. Thanks for the campaign contributions, Northrop/Lockheed/Hughes/McDonnell-Douglas!"

alex_ant
Dec 17, 2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
The only way scientists say missle defense would work is if the missles were tipped with nuclear war heads. The explosion and EMP would destroy any decoys. But that would violate the international treaty against the use of nuclear weapons in space.
Who cares. **** the rest of the world.

alex_ant
Dec 17, 2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by conceptdev
Would it not be easier and cheaper to field a weapon that disperses a a cluster of bomblets in a large space that would create a large shockwave and therefore interdict the trajectory of the incomming rocket? This would cover a larger amount of space and get rid of the whole hitting a bullet with a bullet issue. Just an idea.
What I'm thinking is that the current plan is not ambitious enough. Its success rate has shown to be not all we'd like it to be, and I think the solution to this is obvious: A vast field of nuclear-powered lasers on the surface of the moon.

"But," you say, "the moon is only in half of the earth's view at any given time." Yes, that is indeed true, and is the reason we must build a second moon, opposite the orbit of the original, with its own field of atomic lasers.

Before you balk at the $12.3 trillion price tag, ask yourself: How much is freedom worth to you?

jelloshotsrule
Dec 17, 2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

What I'm thinking is that the current plan is not ambitious enough. Its success rate has shown to be not all we'd like it to be, and I think the solution to this is obvious: A vast field of nuclear-powered lasers on the surface of the moon.

"But," you say, "the moon is only in half of the earth's view at any given time." Yes, that is indeed true, and is the reason we must build a second moon, opposite the orbit of the original, with its own field of atomic lasers.

Before you balk at the $12.3 trillion price tag, ask yourself: How much is freedom worth to you?

if we're not all already dead by 2k16. consider yourself our secretary of defense. brilliant stuff!

i might add, that sun is a bit too powerful..... kinda edging in on our territory as the most powerful anything in the world. might want to come up with some ideas for that one.

MrMacMan
Dec 17, 2002, 02:53 PM
You know what we need, a war close to home, U.S stop picking on the Middle East. Lets see How about...

CANADA. When is the last time you have heard of a Canadian military! ;) (If some of you are canadian, its called sarcasm)
Look they have the perfect placement, they have lumber and look at them, so quiet never having problems, heck ever 2 Offical Languges! 2! :D

Look the U.S want iRaqi oil and control of the rest of the world, and maybe soon it will happen.

alex_ant
Dec 17, 2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
if we're not all already dead by 2k16. consider yourself our secretary of defense. brilliant stuff!

i might add, that sun is a bit too powerful..... kinda edging in on our territory as the most powerful anything in the world. might want to come up with some ideas for that one.
I thought I was going to be your VP. Oh well, no reason I can't be both.

You're right about the sun. Something will have to be done. What if we build a giant spherical mirror around it, so that its rays bounce right back to it? Then it would fry itself and burn itself out. Somebody call NASA.

jelloshotsrule
Dec 17, 2002, 06:24 PM
vp, secretary of state... doesn't matter really. we'll get rid of congress anyways, so that doesn't matter much either.

as for calling nasa... someone messed with my speed dial. number 4 is no longer nasa, but rather the chubb institute's bursar's office....

weird.

so shoot me that number when you get a chance.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 17, 2002, 07:38 PM
Ok, no lasers on the moon - what are you going to use to get them there and they're sitting ducks? It would be much easier just to 'update' the GPS satellites again and add, um, range finding lasers that can be pumped up to higher levels in an emergency.

I worked out at JPL for a summer, you might want to try the Skunk Works number instead, they've got better stuff. Nasa hasn't got the any of the captured alien space craft that you'd need to get things updated fast enough. ;)

D

alex_ant
Dec 17, 2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Ok, no lasers on the moon - what are you going to use to get them there and they're sitting ducks? It would be much easier just to 'update' the GPS satellites again and add, um, range finding lasers that can be pumped up to higher levels in an emergency.
That's a good idea as well. No reason we can't have both. :)

Mr. Anderson
Dec 17, 2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

That's a good idea as well. No reason we can't have both. :)

True, you could build the GPS system first and then use it to guard the one on the moon. We'd have to call the second moon the Death Star you know.

D

medea
Dec 17, 2002, 08:21 PM
well the problem here is that the system has not been tested enough and when it comes to the military they dont usually deploy weapons whether for defense or offense without the proper testing so now we are pouring more money into a system that might not even be the best answer, imagine sending troops into battle with tanks that might work but also might not.....
better than nothing they say, but I say that's not good enough.

ddtlm
Dec 18, 2002, 02:04 AM
medea:

imagine sending troops into battle with tanks that might work but also might not
Eh? Thats how it was in WW #1. See also early submarines, and probably all manner of pioneering machines of war.

alex_ant
Dec 18, 2002, 02:14 AM
His point flew right over your head and nearly hit me in the face. Please be more careful next time

ddtlm
Dec 18, 2002, 02:22 AM
alex_ant:

In your rush to be witty your making an ass of yourself. medea's "better than nothing" could have meant the tanks, or it could have meant the missile defense, and I decided to make sure the point on tanks was clear.

alex_ant
Dec 18, 2002, 02:28 AM
And in your rush to be pedantic you managed to completely... well, whatever you managed to do, it obviously didn't have much to do with comprehending medea's post.

ddtlm
Dec 18, 2002, 02:38 AM
alex_ant:

What are you talking about? I beleive I got his point fine. Regardless of that, I don't know what your issue is, but I do not have time to waste with this stupidity. Troll on by yourself.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 18, 2002, 07:59 AM
can't we all play nice?

this thread lost its point long ago.

As for the system working or not - regardless, it gives a sense of security and 'we're doing something' feeling. It is a first step in missle interception technology and it will only get better. Then the enemies will make smarter missles and we'll have to invest more money to counter that, etc.

Think of all the people who get jobs because of this? But it is a bit of money, regardless.
D

jelloshotsrule
Dec 18, 2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Then the enemies will make smarter missles and we'll have to invest more money to counter that, etc.


or, we'll make smarter missiles, and give them to some rebels to overthrow some country's "bad" government or fight a war against the enemy of today. then, those rebels will become the enemy of tomorrow and shoot those puppies as us.


hahaha. like our counrty would ever be THAT shortsighted!

Backtothemac
Dec 19, 2002, 02:19 PM
Nope, it won't be a wasteland. Because I will be the President. See, I will make Arnold my Secretary of state, and have Barbara Streisand be the head of national sanitation. Since she is so full of **** anyway, she should know how best to handle it.

alex_ant
Dec 19, 2002, 05:44 PM
When will you be President? The Pants Pissers Party will have taken over starting in 2016, so it will have to be before then. If you want, though, we will have some open posts we'll need to fill in our administration. In fact, we plan on crushing the Democrats & Republicans at about that time (literally), so it would probably be a good idea if you joined us, if only for your own sake. :)

Mr. Anderson
Dec 19, 2002, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
The Pants Pissers Party will have taken over starting in 2016

I thought it was the Pants ****ters Party?

If you need a Science Advisor, I should be available by then :D

D

jelloshotsrule
Dec 20, 2002, 12:16 AM
hear hear ale x_ant

we will dismantle and demolish all the parties.

and no, it's the pants pissers. never been ****ters.

that's weak. anyone can pull that off. much less obvious.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 20, 2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

that's weak. anyone can pull that off. much less obvious.

only from a distance - you stand next to them and its much worse....

jelloshotsrule
Dec 20, 2002, 10:00 AM
we're talking on tv though... ever seen anyone piss their pants in the middle of a debate? or during an inaugural speech? or during a state of the union address? well get ready!

Mr. Anderson
Dec 20, 2002, 10:01 AM
and after your term in office you'll immediately be the spokes president for Depends - very shrewd on your part :D

D

jelloshotsrule
Dec 20, 2002, 10:17 AM
yeah. gotta be able to retire early though

what me and ale didn't mention was that we're going to be abolishing term limits too... so who knows when our reign of pissing will end.

alex_ant
Dec 20, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
so who knows when our reign of pissing will end.
Excellent pun :)

jelloshotsrule
Dec 20, 2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Excellent pun :)

that's just a glimpse of things to come.