If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Times)   U.S. technology again shows we are not to be farked with.   (nando.com) divider line 78
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

8513 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2002 at 10:31 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-03-16 10:36:17 AM
This is some scary stuff... if I lived in ANY other country right now, friend or foe, I would be very very worried about the near future.
 
2002-03-16 10:36:44 AM
Too bad we can't find a technology to turn religous fanatics into drooling goons.
 
2002-03-16 10:39:38 AM
2346th time is a charm I guess. Cool technology but a damn hard problem to crack.
 
2002-03-16 10:40:27 AM
Those 'dummy missles' have transmitters in them so the attacking rockets can find them... they have in every test so far.

Wonder why they failed to mention that part...
 
2002-03-16 10:41:36 AM
Hooray, more imagined threats that suck my money out of my pockets.
 
2002-03-16 10:41:36 AM
Boxcar, Shhhhhhhh, don't let the little ones know.
 
2002-03-16 10:42:10 AM
we would have has this technology 6 or 7 years ago, had we not all been victims of mr. clinton.

death to you.

flame on.
 
2002-03-16 10:46:06 AM
The 'dummy missiles' have transmitters to mimic real long-range missiles. Most missiles emit some sort of signature; few missiles are launched without a guidance or tracking system.
 
2002-03-16 10:46:41 AM
Just like in NASA programs, the technology developed by this program may well be worth the cost.
 
2002-03-16 10:48:24 AM
Scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel:
We've had that technology for years, actually. It's called a "Revival meetin'".
 
2002-03-16 10:51:59 AM
yo yo ma
 
2002-03-16 10:52:52 AM
Yo Yo Ma is a rapper? I last saw him playing a violin.. wierd... :P
 
2002-03-16 10:56:20 AM
"Hooray, more imagined threats that suck my money out of my pockets."

-------------------

Yes, because we know the United States is ABSOLUTELY safe, and no one would ever attack us =/
 
2002-03-16 10:58:44 AM
Had we stayed in our position under the Clinton Administration, we would not be developing that acts as countermeasures against China's nuclear arsenal. Clinton believed that the world was gradually becoming a more global society, and that we wouldn't need countermeasures. This is wishful thinking, and although this may be true in the long-run, missle defense is a needed addition to the US's short term national policy.

We aren't going to use this as a defense against rogue states, although the system will be able to handle that. The real reason behind this is to remain superior to China. Because nobody on internet forums seems gifted enough to even realize that, I do not expect anything more from Fark.com however funny the site is.
 
2002-03-16 10:58:48 AM
What an incredible waste of money. These will never be close to 100% effective, and they will be easily decoyed. Even if they were foolproof, it would just force our enemies into attacking by alternate means.
 
2002-03-16 10:59:13 AM
I guess if they can hit the missle every 6th time then all we have to worry about are the other 5 that actually hit us :) Now NO ONE can mess with US! We are Invincible!
 
2002-03-16 11:01:01 AM
scraping~
we do and have been playing with that technology in Afghanistan this winter.
 
2002-03-16 11:04:07 AM
Can I interest anyone in prime Florida swamp real estate?
 
2002-03-16 11:05:10 AM
Paladine: these we're tests, not final production models. We hit 4/6 of them.
 
2002-03-16 11:06:24 AM
Money well spent in the defense of freedom.

900 Helens agree: The missile defense is a good thing.

Strange how liberals think they can solve ANY problem in Washington by just throwing more money at it. But for some reason liberals don't think the same way for missile defense. Oh well, just go back to petting your dolphins while the important people go about their work of defending the greatest nation on earth..........
 
2002-03-16 11:09:59 AM
My only question is, with a system like this, how long before one fubbs up and targets something like a passenger jet or something, i mean those emit signals such as radar as well, much like a missle, and use the same semi ballistic type travel patterns, and we all know software is not perfect (bsod etc.), and this system is supposed to be automatic? from now on im takin boats and trains...
 
2002-03-16 11:12:41 AM
FuzzBeast: No, airliners do not even come close to imitating the flight patterns of ICBMS. Airliners do not launch straight up, go in space, or travel at Mach 20.
 
2002-03-16 11:31:38 AM
Some sort of... sick man's croquet. I wanna play!
 
2002-03-16 11:35:53 AM
This is wonderful. In spite of terrorist hijacking our own planes, this asshead still thinks that we need a star wars system which occasionally shoots down dummy missiles with tracking devices. This is obviously a ploy to funnel money or something.

Worst...president.....ever
 
2002-03-16 11:39:28 AM
still.. I'd say bad news for the Dems. It looks like Bush in a landslide.

Via Zogby

"Bush 58.0
Gore 34.4
Other 2.2

Bush 63.9
Clinton 28.8
Other 2.6

Bush 62.1
Gephardt 26.2
Other 2.4

Bush 61.1
Daschle 25.1
Other 2.2"

Barring another Ross Perot, Bush will not be a one-termer
 
2002-03-16 11:46:00 AM
Can somebody explain to me why N.Korea (or China) would want to attack the US? I can't see any rational reason for that. And if you are afraid of terrorists, I am sure they would prefer to deliver a nuclear device on US soil without taking a detour through space.

If you think about the reasoning behind the ABM treaty, an anti-ballistic missile is an offensive weapon. It makes it possible to start and WIN a major nuclear war. If any other country with nuclear capability developed something like this, it would certainly be viewed as a threat to the rest of the world.
 
#2 [TotalFark]
2002-03-16 11:47:50 AM
How can you be afraid of missles, looks pretty timid to me, almost downright friendly!!!

 
2002-03-16 11:50:03 AM
Of course Bush will get a second term. He's managed to make the sheep see him as "the strong president who will defend the nation at any cost". You know the old saying... "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

That's all I'm going to say for now, it's too farking early for me to even be awake.
 
2002-03-16 11:50:33 AM
yo yo ma
 
2002-03-16 11:52:29 AM
Pssssst! I can see the future. Shhhhhhhh.......
 
2002-03-16 11:55:08 AM
Tobek: Of course not.
 
2002-03-16 11:55:38 AM
"we would have has this technology 6 or 7 years ago, had we not all been victims of mr. clinton. "

...and it would have helped us how?
 
2002-03-16 11:55:48 AM
Tobek: Of course not. Don't be silly.
 
2002-03-16 11:55:54 AM
The deal here is that this wouldn't be a system that would make it possible to WIN a nuclear war. It would only be able to defeat a few missle, not Russia's entire arsenal.
 
2002-03-16 12:08:12 PM
Communists detest the idea of missile defense. It might make it harder for the North Koreans and Chinese to finish us off. Traitors in this country are working for the fall of the US Government and the establishment of a Chinese-satelite dictatorship headed by Comrade Clinton.

A land where Christianity will be illegal, as will all other religions. A land where homosexuality is the order of the day and if you have more than two kids, they will be killed. A land that is truely a third-world country.

Communists thrive with the third world, they want to bring it to all of us. They have creeped in thru the teachings of false religions like Islam, Buddhism, Athiesm, Hinduism and Scientology. They seek to turn America into an agarian state.

Down with Scientology, down with polytheistic Satan inspired Pagan Hindus, down with Buddhism, down with Athiesm, down with Mohammedism and down with the Church of Satan. This America, a land that is blessed by God, His Son and His Spirit. Communists are angering God and much like he allowed with the Israelis in the 3rd century, he is allowing people to hurt America to wake us up.
 
2002-03-16 12:11:18 PM
Tetrasutra, you have some good points, and you also did a good job dispelling myths and falsehoods. Therefore it is even more suprising to me that you would actually be in support of this, even when you yourself mentioned the real reason for this program:

"The real reason behind this is to remain superior to China."

Do you not remember the cold war, or at least remember reading about it and talking to those who lived through it? Certainly, this would keep us superior over China, maybe for about 6 or 7 years. Then they would be in a race to build something more powerful to combat our system. We have no reason to believe that China would stop in development of weapons merely because we had some kind of defense. One sort of stragedy they could take would be to build a lot more missiles, knowing that the defense system is only capable of handling X, so that any number over X would get past it.

How many is X ? Well that is the beauty for Bush and more importantly, defense contractors. Every time china builds more missiles, defense contractors can get more money for increasing the number of missles we use for defense.

Missile defense sounds like a terrific thing. Few people wouldn't want to have it, if it had little cost, and no large global impact. However it fails on both of those counts. The article states it will take between 23 and 64 billion dollars to do it. And secondly it will almost certainly prompt China and North Korea to enter into another arms race with us, making the defense shield obsolete and forcing us to spend more money to develop something new. I for one want to be safe as possible, but the thought of another cold war conjures images of people living in fear, not safety.
 
2002-03-16 12:18:49 PM
Best way to survive a war: Don't start one.
 
2002-03-16 12:27:11 PM
Missile defense technology will be very important in the future. It's a technology that can also help defend anything that is threatened by a missile.

Aircraft carriers are still vulnerable to some missiles. Apparently liberals would like to see american sailors die from a missile attack.

Passenger aircraft are vulnerable to all missiles. So liberals want to see more planes blow up.

And the US is still vulnerable to any piss ant country with an ICBM. Of course liberals love having a communist china armed with weapons that can kill millions of americans. Every liberal secretly cheers for the commie team.
 
2002-03-16 12:34:08 PM
Emeril:
had too much beer?
 
2002-03-16 12:39:17 PM
Theseus:

You cannot compare China and North Korea to the Soviet Union. Both of them are at least 50 years behind the US in conventional technology, and China is about 20 years behind in missle technology. There is not much Uranium in China, hence they cannot develop a vast nuclear arsenal as the USSR did. The best they can do is make about 10 bombs a year, which we would be able to shoot down once we have a wide range of ABM locations. North Korea cannot afford to feed it's population, much less enter into an arms race with any nation.

It does cost a lot, which is a mixed blessing. Anything vital to the national security of the United States must be had, no matter the cost. Moreover, the ABMs will not fabricate themselves. A large workforce will be required to build and maintain the missles, making jobs and consequently putting money back into the economy.
 
2002-03-16 12:41:55 PM
I saw it. it was neat-o
 
2002-03-16 12:44:39 PM
sure it can knock cruise missles out of the sky, but can it knock a boxcutter out of a terrorists hand?
 
2002-03-16 12:44:48 PM
20/20 What an incredible waste of money. These will never be close to 100% effective, and they will be easily decoyed. Even if they were foolproof, it would just force our enemies into attacking by alternate means.

Um, that's kind of the point, buddy. "Alternate means" to intercontinental ballistic missiles means that a foreign power would actually have to try to INVADE us if they wanted to strike the U.S. -- and the supply lines would be so long, and they would be at such a tactical disadvantage, that it would end as a disaster for them. (Especially when the U.S. goes after their country in epic, biblical proportions.)
 
2002-03-16 12:45:39 PM
If you do not believe China is a threat, remember what happened a few years ago when we responded to them moving forces near Taiwan.

They moved a significant portion of their naval and air forces into striking distance with Taiwan, in what they called "War Games." The US in response moved the 7th fleet (could have been 6th, I forgot) into the strait between taiwan and China. There was much commotion over this, and the news was quick to interview every politician in China that they could find. When the foreign minister to the US was interviewed, a reporter asked what would happen if the United States became involved in China's dispute with Taiwan.

The minister said, "The United states will not become involved, because they want to keep Los Angles."
 
2002-03-16 12:49:18 PM
Is anybody else wondering how the "yo" posts are staying at the end of the thread?
 
2002-03-16 12:50:59 PM
yo yo.... daddy?
 
2002-03-16 12:51:06 PM
last post filter yo
 
2002-03-16 12:52:02 PM
Boobies
 
2002-03-16 12:53:04 PM
Tetrasutra:
i was wondering the same thing... methinks Drew got some new uber-leet forum skills
 
2002-03-16 01:06:23 PM
I doubt any civilized country would really launch a nuclear strike against another nuclear capable country... just too much chance of everyone dying. So that leaves a rogue state or a terrorist organization that would have a very small number of warheads, right?

Ok, so here's a question... What would be an easier way to hit the US with a nuke? Buy/develop an expensive and difficult to fine tune intercontinental missle propulsion system. OR... Smuggle a warhead in (bribe customs or someone into thinking it's just the normal shipment of illegal drugs) and get it to your operatives that are currently waiting in the US. Have them arrage to get the warhead armed in a public place and then blow up a big chunk of the city of your choice.

I think the latter is both cheaper, easier to execute, and a more reliable way of delivering the ordinance. I guess the moral is this... develop a very low capacity, high cost missle "defence" system and anyone who really wants to bomb you will just find the better way to do it.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report