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.

(Yahoo)   Remember when everybody on the Left was saying "Star Wars will never work, Reagan is crazy"? It seems to be working pretty well in Israel   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 223
    More: Spiffy, Iron Dome, iron, Gaza Strip, air defence, mortar shells, interceptors, Palestinian militants, rockets  
•       •       •

3679 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 8:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-16 09:30:18 PM

Kanemano: Wouldn't this work better?



My guess is that the approaching missile has to be too close for that option to work well over a heavily populated area. I've seen that system mounted on US warships, but in their case they can hit a missile when it's just a few hundred yards away, and it just falls into the ocean.
 
2012-11-16 09:30:21 PM
Let's pretend we are Republicans, and this is a proposal to provide more food for poor children.

WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THIS??
WHERE'S THE MONEY SUPPOSED TO COME FROM??
WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR WHAT YOU WANT??
IF IT'S SO GREAT, WHY DON'T YOU PAY FOR IT YOURSELF??
ISN'T ELEVENTY JILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT ENOUGH FOR YOU LIBS??
And so on.
 
2012-11-16 09:31:35 PM
I think you missed the main reason why it was labeled STAR wars, submittard
 
2012-11-16 09:32:32 PM
Star of David wars?
 
2012-11-16 09:33:13 PM

wrs1864: Following your link, I see that Reagan's SDI program was morphed by Clinton into something more reasonable, part of which was used to create a more advanced version of the PATRIOT missile system. The original PATRIOT system was started long before Reagan.

So, no, SDI didn't spawn the PATRIOT missile system.


I just noted that Clinton morphed the program into theater defense instead of nation defense.

The PATRIOT program was originally designed as an anti-aircraft missile - it changed to missile defense during SDI. Then it was tested in action during the first Gulf War, and when it looked like it worked, Clinton changed the goal of the program and renamed it in the process. The PATRIOT program existed, but the missile to missile system of defense didn't exist before SDI. 

Why is any of this controversial? We spent a trillion dollars trying to figure out how to knock missiles out of the sky. Is anyone surprised that one small part of it eventually worked?
 
2012-11-16 09:36:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: Nobody wanted to know that back in the 50's when they were still plotting Mutually Assured Destruction and still coming up with "the United States will win" scenarios. And nobody really wants to know it now.


mad wasn't viable until the mid 1960's. the very first soviet intercontinental bomber wasn't even in service until the 1956, and there were obvious already available defenses to that turborprop bomber.

it wasn't until the russians had large numbers of ICBMS in the mid 1960s that both countries were fated to lose in a all out nuclear engagement. the first soviet ICBM wasn't deployed until 1960 and there were not large numbers of them until well after that.

before that a lose lose scenario wasn't assured, and u.s. policy makers faced up to the reality of MADD by the the time russia had large numbers of their relatively unreliable ICBMS. even the psychotic Curtis Lemay had moderated himself somewhat by that time. that acceptance, among other reasons, things like invading north vietnam could never even considered. read Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb if interested in the timeline of the MADD doctrines creation and acceptance.
 
2012-11-16 09:38:49 PM

mongbiohazard: The arguments against SDI were always..... less than convincing. I think a lot of people just didn't want it because Reagan wanted it.


I think it was the fact that even if it were 90% effective (and that was an optimistic estimate) the Soviets still had enough missiles to turn every major American city into a glass parking lot multiple times over with the 10% that got through.
 
2012-11-16 09:39:54 PM

shower_in_my_socks: In defense of the "Star Wars" supporters: I think the goal of similar programs now is not to defeat a massive nuclear attack by a major power like Russia, but to defend against a smaller "rogue state" attack from North Korea, Iran, etc. where there might be a handful of missiles launched, vs. thousands.


That's been the focus since Clinton renamed and re-purposed the goal of the SDI program in the early 1990's. The new entity was called the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and its primary focus changed to theater defense. Then Bush II renamed it the Missile Defense Agency and apparently left the focus vague enough that it can work on whatever the hell it wants.
 
2012-11-16 09:44:44 PM

CujoQuarrel: It was never supposed to be able to handle all of those Russian missiles and the Russians knew it. It was to be a deterrent for those with smaller countries that would only have a few they could fire. Like NK or Iran.

So right now we got nothing.


There are 3 classic principles to nuclear strategy, all chilling to think about:

1. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
2. Offense is defense, defense is offense.
3. Weapons that kill weapons are bad, weapons that kill people are good.

Basically, it goes like this:

Any asshole can kill a city. It's an easy target to hit, and the 'assured' part of MAD comes from the fact that, if you have enough of the damn things, you must inevitably be able to wipe a city out. And since the distances involved are too great for instantaneous surprise attacks, there's just no way for one side to get the drop on the other without someone being able to push the button. The side that strikes second may be dead by the time their missiles arrive, but arrive they will. Guaranteed. Therefore, assuming that all actors in the system are rational (ie, they don't want to die horribly), so long as I can kill you and you can kill me, we cancel each other out.

The problem arises when one side tries to develop first strike capability. If one side could figure out a way to use surprise and/or technology to get around the A in MAD, they might start thinking if they hit first and hard enough, the other side couldn't respond and they could 'win' a nuclear war. Given the sheer number of warheads out there, this view is a fallacy. You CANNOT win a nuclear war.

But that didn't stop both sides from trying. Missile submarines, cruise missiles, stealth, and star wars were all ttmpts to get around that A. The problem is, from a strategic perspective there's no difference between a hyper-stealthy bomber than can drop smart nukes onto enemy silos with pinpoint accuracy, super-quiet submarine that can launch its missiles from 100 miles away, and an orbiting laser that can wipe out the other guy's missiles mid-flight. They are all equally attempts at first strike capability, and they all equally destabilize the system.

And American Presidents were especially bad for this. Yeah, they called it a 'missile defense' system for the home audience, but all the Soviets saw was a mavericky fellow who ran his mouth and was dumping a fortune into a nearly maintenance-free first-strike weapon. Of course they had to respond. We may think now that Reagan was a genius for getting the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion, but the debts he raised have never been paid off, and he wouldn't have looked so hot if the Soviets had flinched just a little more in 1983.

So now you take an already dangerously barely-stable system and you plug some tinpot dictator like Kim Jong Un into the mix. Yeah, you may think that missile defense is intended against them, but even if it is, the Russians can't wait to see. If it gets used, they almost have to strike, because of the very limited timeframes imposed by MAD.

Star Wars: it not only doesn't do what Reagan said it would, it also almost triggered exactly the sort of war it was intended to prevent.
 
2012-11-16 09:45:16 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-16 09:45:29 PM

whistleridge: The bright side for you being that you would at least die fast. In fact, your warheads probably wouldn't even be ICBMs, but low-trajectory sub-launched missiles. Given how people at ground zero kind of wink out of existence, you might literally be dead before you even time to think 'what's that bright lig--'


Honestly, I'd rather die in the initial attack than live through a nuclear war.
 
2012-11-16 09:47:08 PM
I don't deny SDI produced some things that work. But the big idea, the magic shield against a Soviet first strike in World War III that Reagan sold on TV, was never ever going to work. The offense can make decoys more cheaply than the defense can scale up. Check and mate.
 
2012-11-16 09:53:04 PM

Lsherm: theknuckler_33: Lsherm: theknuckler_33: Lsherm: FlashHarry: yeah, that's not star wars. more like better-working patriot missiles.

The Patriot missile program was developed as part of the Ground Based Programs - Extended Range Interceptor section of the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars". It is very much part of that initiative, people just forget that it had other components besides space based interception.

Hi Subby1

Not subby - I was just pointing out that Patriot missiles were born out of that initiative. Since most of Fark is apparently too young to remember SDI, most seem to think it was only about space lasers.

Well, hopefully you are reasonable enough to recognize that referencing Star Wars in the headline was pretty stupid considering the program being talked about is a massively scaled down theatre system vs the massive global/continental ground-based system envisioned by Reagan (not to mention ignoring the space-based aspect of Reagan's idea).

It WAS pretty stupid, but quite frankly there's a lot of selective history going on in this thread, none of it particularly intelligent. Subby may be an idiot, but so are a lot of other people posting here.

And I'll do you a solid for reasonableness: The ground-based portion of SDI that the Patriot program grew out of didn't really hit its stride until the Clinton administration when they renamed SDI to BMDO and explicitly changed the goal of the initiative from national defense to theater defense. Clinton took what looked like it might work and refocused missile defense on that.

Honestly, the only reason I even knew the Patriot program was borne out of the SDI is because it's all they were reporting during the first Gulf War in 1991. It's not like it was a controversial claim 20 years ago.


It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.
 
2012-11-16 10:00:10 PM

theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.


FYI, Lsherm, that sounds far more confrontational than I intended.
 
2012-11-16 10:01:00 PM
So it seems to be pretty well covered, but to sum up:

Star Wars =/= all missile/rocket defense
 
2012-11-16 10:01:34 PM

theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.


No, but people credit the Space Race for all kinds of things - correctly - and it was an outlandish idea. SDI was a research initiative, it's not surprising that some good came out of it. Nor is it a sign of weakness to admit that ERMAGAWD, even a bad program from Reagan had an upside years down the road.
 
2012-11-16 10:01:46 PM

relcec: Marcus Aurelius: Theater level missile defense is not the same as shooting down a real ICBM, subby.

sure, when you criticized star wars, you weren't criticizing all missile defense, you weren't attacking missile defense, just intercontinental, right? and when intercontinental becomes effective at shooting down ICBMs, you'll really just have been criticizing the pictures with lasers in space.
sure, I'll buy that.
no, you idiots were saying everything was impossible, even the shiat that was working in the 1960s. it was part of the everything Reagan does is stupid and evil because he kicked our ass plan, including the shiat that works effectively and you'd support if a democrat did it.


What "shiat that was working in the 1960s?"
 
2012-11-16 10:02:20 PM

theknuckler_33: theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.

FYI, Lsherm, that sounds far more confrontational than I intended.


I didn't take it as such, no worries.
 
2012-11-16 10:04:18 PM

StinkyFiddlewinks: What "shiat that was working in the 1960s?"


He must mean missiles. Missiles were definitely working the 1960's. Otherwise, I'm not sure what he's referring to. Maybe radar tracking?
 
2012-11-16 10:09:56 PM
One trillion to get something that can unreliably sometimes knock down 50 year obsolete rockets. That's some mighty fine ROI there, Lou.
 
2012-11-16 10:10:45 PM
Let me know when they start using kinetic tungsten slugs to kill innocent palestinians in a blatant land grab.
 
2012-11-16 10:15:44 PM

vrax: [S.D.I.]


Amiga 1200 ftw
 
2012-11-16 10:18:45 PM
Missiles shooting down missiles. Yay for physicians, or whatever they are.

This guy has a laser SDI in his casino, along with robot hookers. And he doesn't even need to get out of bed to use it.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-11-16 10:23:06 PM
Anybody who says missile defense would NEVER work is crazy.

The problem is that if you have two or more semi-equal superpowers counter missile defense measures would enviably be created. The very, very, very costly race would then begin where after going back and forth a few times someone might finally get a semi-permanent edge.

Now making a defense system against 50 year old static technology should be very doable.
 
2012-11-16 10:30:04 PM
The Soviets figured out they lost the Cold War with SDI.
 
2012-11-16 10:32:25 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.


I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.
 
2012-11-16 10:37:50 PM
You guys really went off on a tangent. The low level AMMs are working for Israel. Stop playing with the doomsday clock. The fact of the matter is that we have no nucear-armed enemies who might strike out at us in anger. We're all on the same side now--money. North Korea might be able to do something horrible to Japan (jeez, 20 year recession, horrendous earthquake/tsunami, nuclear disaster--it's almost as there's some ridiculously bad karma in their past that's come back to haunt them) but Iran is still years away from mounting a credible nuclear threat and Pakistan/India might decide to annihilate each other but that won't affect us much. So stop posting casualty figures.

Hey, where are the "It's not fair, those bastard Israelis should let more rockets and mortars through" posts? That's what I came here to see.
 
2012-11-16 10:38:06 PM
Nice. Better than duck and cover. Phasers on Searching, Seek, and Destroy!
 
2012-11-16 10:39:15 PM

Aldon: Now making a defense system against 50 year old static technology should be very doable.


Yep, given many weeks' notice, they can shoot down a target 20% of the time.

That's some fine countermeasuring there, Lou.
 
2012-11-16 10:42:37 PM

tuckeg: shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.

I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.


There was no proposed system - only ideas about a system, which is why it was a research project. The "split warhead" was a big problem no one managed to deal with (and that was reported in TIME, so if it's what you are referring to, that cat is long out of the bag).
 
2012-11-16 10:43:32 PM

tuckeg: shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.

I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.


Patriot Block-3 has been doing this for a while.

Hitting a missile with a missile (aka bullet with a bullet) is something we've been doing for decades. Aegis can counter ballistic missile threats.
 
2012-11-16 10:44:13 PM
Each Iron Dome interception costs Israel between $30,000 and $50,000. Israeli officials say the system prevents potentially lethal rocket strikes that might force the country into a war that could cost as much as $380 million a day.

At least the Israeli government has figured out that war costs a lot of money per day. I wish our last "I wanna be a war president" had figured that out.
 
2012-11-16 10:56:16 PM
Star Wars type, space based weapons missile defense would never work because the first thing an major opponent would do in the event of a first strike is to first destroy the satellites which are part of the missile defense. Crippling satellites is just as easy if not easier than using multi-independently targeted warheads and thousands of dummy missiles. Even with a minor opponent, such an all-encompassing system would not work because they would just sneak a couple nuclear warheads on cargo ships near the coast and detonate them, rather than launch them from thousands of miles away. Even mino level threats, if they can handle ICBMs could engage in anti-satellite operations. Bottom-line, the instability in MAD caused by Star Wars was never worth the benefit it promised.
 
2012-11-16 10:59:58 PM
Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.
 
2012-11-16 11:00:30 PM

Kanemano: Shooting down these?

With this? Seems a waste

Wouldn't this work better?


Pretty sure that has an effective range of only a few miles, whereas Iron Dome has a range of like 70 km, but other than needing like ten times as many to even cover the same areas that Iron Dome does (not considering other areas where Phalanx just isn't as good at defending huge areas from missiles), sure, I guess it works?

Honestly, a laser based defense might be best of all. Early versions might have to swap out parts that get burnt out/warped relatively often though, which could drive the cost up to/past what Iron Dome is. But once they get past that the only real variable "cost" is the significant power needs of each pulse, which, while probably not cheap, probably is a whole ton less than $40,000, too. And it hits the target basically instantly (so much better accuracy if done right) and if it doesn't, you'll know almost right away. Not a whole lot of point putting it in space though. Up there, maintenance is extremely difficult/costly and they can only fire as fast as they can recoup energy using solar panels or whatever. Ground based can just be loaded with new batteries or charged by other, faster means.
 
2012-11-16 11:03:27 PM

whidbey: Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.


Don't they have state-sponsored health care?
 
2012-11-16 11:08:43 PM

RyogaM: Star Wars type, space based weapons missile defense would never work because the first thing an major opponent would do in the event of a first strike is to first destroy the satellites which are part of the missile defense. Crippling satellites is just as easy if not easier than using multi-independently targeted warheads and thousands of dummy missiles. Even with a minor opponent, such an all-encompassing system would not work because they would just sneak a couple nuclear warheads on cargo ships near the coast and detonate them, rather than launch them from thousands of miles away. Even mino level threats, if they can handle ICBMs could engage in anti-satellite operations. Bottom-line, the instability in MAD caused by Star Wars was never worth the benefit it promised.


First, taking out a satellite has never been a trivial exercise. Even the recent Chinese example involved low-orbit intercept. If you have enough dummies to make sure a weapon gets through to the satellite, you may as well just forego intercepting the satellite and just launch all those weapons against the US directly because you'll overwhelm whatever defenses we have anyway.

Second, people are unlikely to try to use a cargo ship because it is unreliable, leaves the weapon outside the control of the launching authority, and generally not how any state will deploy a nuke against us.

Third, ICBM capability is nowhere NEAR anti-sat capability. Just like launching something into orbit != ICBM capability.
 
2012-11-16 11:09:41 PM

vygramul: whidbey: Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.

Don't they have state-sponsored health care?


Not for those Palestinian dogs.
 
2012-11-16 11:12:02 PM

Lsherm: tuckeg: shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.

I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.

There was no proposed system - only ideas about a system, which is why it was a research project. The "split warhead" was a big problem no one managed to deal with (and that was reported in TIME, so if it's what you are referring to, that cat is long out of the bag).


Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..
 
2012-11-16 11:16:17 PM
If they should bar wars....

www.littlestuffedbull.com
 
2012-11-16 11:19:42 PM

naughtyrev: Let me know when they start shooting down rockets with space based lasers.


DING DING DING. Thread over.

Thanks for playing, Dumbmitter.
 
2012-11-16 11:21:46 PM

tuckeg: Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..


Ha! Now I'm intrigued!

Tracking a cold object against a cold background? Because I worked on that back in the day on a public project. Unfortunately, our experiment didn't work, but it's long since been declassified. I'll still leave it vague, though.
 
2012-11-16 11:23:45 PM
Has anyone mentioned it appears subby is lacking in basic technical comprehension and/or is an idiot yet?
 
2012-11-16 11:24:34 PM

Lsherm: tuckeg: Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..

Ha! Now I'm intrigued!

Tracking a cold object against a cold background? Because I worked on that back in the day on a public project. Unfortunately, our experiment didn't work, but it's long since been declassified. I'll still leave it vague, though.


You are in the ballpark.
 
2012-11-16 11:26:43 PM
Liberals didn't say "Star Wars will never work, Reagan is crazy". Liberals said 'Star Wars is unnecessary, Reagan is wasting billions of dollars on nothing".
 
2012-11-16 11:27:01 PM

Mi-5: naughtyrev: Let me know when they start shooting down rockets with space based lasers.

DING DING DING. Thread over.

Thanks for playing, Dumbmitter.


Well, don't forget Brilliant Pebbles - the part of SDI that considered using kinetic kill vehicles.
 
2012-11-16 11:28:16 PM

The Lone Gunman: Liberals didn't say "Star Wars will never work, Reagan is crazy". Liberals said 'Star Wars is unnecessary, Reagan is wasting billions of dollars on nothing".


Pretty sure we also said it was an unworkable idea and that Reagan was a nut for believing we were going to put a network of defense satellites in orbit when we weren't even serious about getting out into space, period.
 
2012-11-16 11:30:39 PM

tuckeg: Lsherm: tuckeg: Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..

Ha! Now I'm intrigued!

Tracking a cold object against a cold background? Because I worked on that back in the day on a public project. Unfortunately, our experiment didn't work, but it's long since been declassified. I'll still leave it vague, though.

You are in the ballpark.


Tracking a cold object against a cold background is not a problem in the 21st century. The threshold is surprisingly low nowadays.
 
2012-11-16 11:31:45 PM

Loucifer: If they should bar wars....

[www.littlestuffedbull.com image 200x172]


Dear GOD I feel old....
 
2012-11-16 11:33:10 PM

Tanishh: Kanemano: Shooting down these?

With this? Seems a waste

Wouldn't this work better?


Pretty sure that has an effective range of only a few miles, whereas Iron Dome has a range of like 70 km, but other than needing like ten times as many to even cover the same areas that Iron Dome does (not considering other areas where Phalanx just isn't as good at defending huge areas from missiles), sure, I guess it works?

Honestly, a laser based defense might be best of all. Early versions might have to swap out parts that get burnt out/warped relatively often though, which could drive the cost up to/past what Iron Dome is. But once they get past that the only real variable "cost" is the significant power needs of each pulse, which, while probably not cheap, probably is a whole ton less than $40,000, too. And it hits the target basically instantly (so much better accuracy if done right) and if it doesn't, you'll know almost right away. Not a whole lot of point putting it in space though. Up there, maintenance is extremely difficult/costly and they can only fire as fast as they can recoup energy using solar panels or whatever. Ground based can just be loaded with new batteries or charged by other, faster means.


Nope.

Thing about Lasers is they'll cut through just about anything, but they take time. Simple example, take a candle and wave your hand through the flame, now hold your hand over the flame. Like the candle, a laser is going to take (let's be generous) a few seconds on one spot with no "wiggle" before it bores a hole deep enough to set off the warhead. Standard Qassam rocket flies for something like 10 seconds from launch to impact. I admit this is all from memory a few years ago when Iron Dome was being explored in the first place but the point stands, lasers can't work on short-range rockets.

And this relates to the problem with subby's headline. Star Wars was about shooting down nuclear missiles with an extremely high rate of accuracy (even one nuke getting through is pretty freakin' bad) at extreme distance (because nukes detonate while still way up in the air) over HUGE areas (the Entire US plus blast radius and potentially fallout worries). Missiles had to be insanely fast, able to carry enough fuel to get halfway to space, and precise enough to still hit the nuke and hope it didn't go off anyway (not THAT likely...) and be ready to go in seconds. Lasers had to be precise enough and powerful enough to burn a moving target miles away. Also unless I'm mistaken Iron Dome fails quite a bit, it's just a 10, 50, or even 90% failure rate is still 10, 50, or 90% of a success when "success" means "a house doesn't get blown up."

"It'll never work" is extreme, we'll have the tech in the fullness of time and human development, and ICBMs will have stealthing and evasion tech to deal with such things, that's progress. But it was never going to work in Reagan's time, nor to the degree he wanted to sell it.

Anyways, last I'd heard Iron Dome was slug-thrower, did I mishear then or did the method change during final development? Or is the article wrong and mislabeling the Arrow as the Iron Dome?
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report