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  
•       •       •

3680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 8:32 PM (2 years 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 11:33:43 PM  

whidbey: 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.


Liberals DID say that it couldn't work, but they said all those other things. They also said that it was destabilizing. I don't think it was all that destabilizing as either the system worked (and we were in a stable, invulnerable position) or it didn't (in which case, we were still in MAD). The Soviets weren't idiots. If any child could figure out it wouldn't work, some of the best scientists in the world could, too, and many of them lived in the Soviet Union.
 
2012-11-16 11:41:24 PM  

vygramul: 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.

Can't you just use another laser to fry the satellite from the ground?

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.

Real nation, real war? You're right. Cheap state-sponsor of terror and/or shadows-and-spooks cold war? Not so sure.

 
2012-11-16 11:46:53 PM  

brukmann: vrax: [S.D.I.]

Amiga 1200 ftw


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-16 11:47:31 PM  

TheBigJerk: Real nation, real war? You're right. Cheap state-sponsor of terror and/or shadows-and-spooks cold war? Not so sure.


Realize that nukes are not pure weapons. They isotopes they leave behind tell you where the uranium came from and, effectively, which country made the thing. Given that your target will know, you're not doing it as a covert op.

Now, the kind of country that would be interested in having a terrorist attack as a proxy is not going to be a liberal democracy. It's going to be the kind of country that has a poorly-trained army, watchers to watch the army, watchers to watch the watchers, and rotate through "trusted" aides fairly frequently. Those kinds of countries don't tend to hand regime-killing weapons to people they can't be sure won't decide that running their own country looks a little better than a risky attack on the other side of the globe.

So while the terrorist scenario is not irrelevant, it's also fraught with difficulties that create significant incentives to choose other options.
 
2012-11-16 11:48:00 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.


Figured. We had already worked it out for our project, but the actual live testing of it failed. The problem itself seems to have been solved by anti-blur digital camera technology. Funny how things work out.
 
2012-11-16 11:57:42 PM  

Lsherm: 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.


OMG. You cannot morph something out of something else because they both have roughly the same idea: shooting down enemy missiles.

Star Wars was a dud. Period.

If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.
 
2012-11-16 11:58:41 PM  

whistleridge: 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 o ...


So very true.
 
2012-11-17 12:03:52 AM  

Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.


Patriot doesn't skirt the ABM treaty because it is completely incapable of intercepting the kinds of weapons the ABM treaty regulates.
 
2012-11-17 12:05:32 AM  

vygramul: TheBigJerk: Real nation, real war? You're right. Cheap state-sponsor of terror and/or shadows-and-spooks cold war? Not so sure.

Realize that nukes are not pure weapons. They isotopes they leave behind tell you where the uranium came from and, effectively, which country made the thing. Given that your target will know, you're not doing it as a covert op.

Now, the kind of country that would be interested in having a terrorist attack as a proxy is not going to be a liberal democracy. It's going to be the kind of country that has a poorly-trained army, watchers to watch the army, watchers to watch the watchers, and rotate through "trusted" aides fairly frequently. Those kinds of countries don't tend to hand regime-killing weapons to people they can't be sure won't decide that running their own country looks a little better than a risky attack on the other side of the globe.

So while the terrorist scenario is not irrelevant, it's also fraught with difficulties that create significant incentives to choose other options.


True, but if those other options don't present themselves and the hypothesized enemy is crazy enough to want a nuclear war in the first place...Well I won't say I have the authority or knowledge to call your arguments wrong, but they don't dispel my doubts. Perhaps I am foolishly paranoid.

Also a question about the hypothetical killsats. How effective of a tactic would it be to launch and purposefully detonate a nuke WELL before hitting the target to temporarily blind it, and slip all the other ICBMs through its net while it recalibrated? (I'm just assuming it would be too hardened and have too large a kill-radius to actually take it out)

Mild musings as I gear up to go home for the evening.
 
2012-11-17 12:07:11 AM  

whistleridge: 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.


No, the entire point was to reinforce the A, not avoid it. There is a deep misunderstanding about what weapon platforms are for. The worst part of The Hunt for Red October (the movie, anyway) was the description of it as a first-strike weapon. It was FAR more valuable in reinforcing the "A" than an attempt to circumvent it.
 
2012-11-17 12:13:43 AM  

TheBigJerk: So while the terrorist scenario is not irrelevant, it's also fraught with difficulties that create significant incentives to choose other options.

True, but if those other options don't present themselves and the hypothesized enemy is crazy enough to want a nuclear war in the first place...Well I won't say I have the authority or knowledge to call your arguments wrong, but they don't dispel my doubts. Perhaps I am foolishly paranoid.

Also a question about the hypothetical killsats. How effective of a tactic would it be to launch and purposefully detonate a nuke WELL before hitting the target to temporarily blind it, and slip all the other ICBMs through its net while it recalibrated? (I'm just assuming it would be too hardened and have too large a kill-radius to actually take it out)

Mild musings as I gear up to go home for the evening.


It's worth having doubts. Double-checking the math on a tip can result in a mistake that's hardly tragic. Always thinking about this kind of problem is not a waste of time. Keep in mind, though, that rarely are countries as irrational as people like to paint them. (And, if Mearsheimer Structuralism is to be believed, never irrational and never influenced by leaders or special interests.)

To answer your last question, there are certain actions that, if you're capable of them, you're probably better off just using the weapon normally to begin with. This is one such case. Essentially, the holy grail is figuring out how to keep any reasonably foreseeable defense from being overwhelmed by sheer numbers of missiles. You don't need a blinding nuke because you're either going to overwhelm the defenses anyway, or your first missile will be easy to intercept and not provide useful blinding. (Which it probably can't do to begin with, especially with space-based sensors.)
 
2012-11-17 12:15:53 AM  
A star wars defense missile defense system working is not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than ICBMs.
 
2012-11-17 12:16:45 AM  

whistleridge: So: even if only 1/2 of Russia's warheads are pointed at us (it's likely 2/3 or more), and only 1/2 of those work (likely more than 90% will work), and star wars somehow gets 99% of them (a more realistic rate would be 50%), we will still be hit by 33 warheads.

If the average yield of a warhead is ~1500 kT (for comparison, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the ~12 - 20 kT range), that means that the US is going to be hit by 2,475 times as much nuclear force as that which brought the largest war in human history to an abrupt halt.


This bears repeating. Nuclear wars can't be won.
 
2012-11-17 12:22:28 AM  

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?


Every country that has indoor plumbing does, except our backward asses.
 
2012-11-17 12:23:36 AM  
So we're now reaching back to failed Reagan policies, ignoring three decades of technological advancement that might have made them slightly closer to realistic in the interim, pointing at something that kinda, sorta resembles a mildly successful version if you squint really hard and also have a pre-frontal lobotomy, and trying to claim that as a right wing success?

Wow. You rightists are farked.
 
2012-11-17 12:26:35 AM  
I'm sure it works pretty well for bottle rockets. You may want to reconsider relying on that for ICBMs
 
2012-11-17 12:31:16 AM  

skepticultist: whistleridge: So: even if only 1/2 of Russia's warheads are pointed at us (it's likely 2/3 or more), and only 1/2 of those work (likely more than 90% will work), and star wars somehow gets 99% of them (a more realistic rate would be 50%), we will still be hit by 33 warheads.

If the average yield of a warhead is ~1500 kT (for comparison, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the ~12 - 20 kT range), that means that the US is going to be hit by 2,475 times as much nuclear force as that which brought the largest war in human history to an abrupt halt.

This bears repeating. Nuclear wars can't be won.


blogs.westword.com
 
2012-11-17 12:35:29 AM  

Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.


Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.
 
2012-11-17 12:35:58 AM  

Jacobin: I'm sure it works pretty well for bottle rockets. You may want to reconsider relying on that for ICBMs


We don't want to start an arms race with any real nuclear powers anyway. And if any of our current enemies get ahold of a nuke - they aren't going to be lobbing it at us in a rocket. It's nice we spent a trillion making a weapon useful for defending Israel from primitive goatherds - but like everything else Reagan did, it's useless to America.
 
2012-11-17 12:43:10 AM  

Lsherm: Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.

Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.


The Patriot SAM-D pre-dates Reagan. It might have gained some development advantages from SDI, as I'm sure several systems did, but I don't think it's reasonable to call Patriot an outgrowth of SDI.
 
2012-11-17 12:47:13 AM  

vygramul: Lsherm: Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.

Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.

The Patriot SAM-D pre-dates Reagan. It might have gained some development advantages from SDI, as I'm sure several systems did, but I don't think it's reasonable to call Patriot an outgrowth of SDI.


For fark's sake, as I've noted before (In the post you just quoted, and many before it), the missile to missile strategy was a direct result of SDI. Before that it was an anti-aircraft program.
 
2012-11-17 01:25:39 AM  

dookdookdook: Remember when everybody on the Rightand left was saying "Man will never visit outer space, Jules Verne is crazy"?
[img560.imageshack.us image 347x407]


that .gif made my night
 
2012-11-17 01:31:15 AM  
Speaking of "Bar Wars", do we have crowbars in Low Earth Orbit yet? Kinetic kill weapons = fun
 
2012-11-17 01:35:45 AM  
in all seriousness, you know how much trial and error there was just to implement the patriot system? can you imagine what it would look like to do that with star wars? in the 80's?
 
2012-11-17 01:51:32 AM  
Subby is not smart.
 
2012-11-17 01:52:43 AM  

Lsherm: vygramul: Lsherm: Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.

Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.

The Patriot SAM-D pre-dates Reagan. It might have gained some development advantages from SDI, as I'm sure several systems did, but I don't think it's reasonable to call Patriot an outgrowth of SDI.

For fark's sake, as I've noted before (In the post you just quoted, and many before it), the missile to missile strategy was a direct result of SDI. Before that it was an anti-aircraft program.


Hehe, still defending Star Wars. Decades go by and you STILL defend that shiat.
 
2012-11-17 01:54:01 AM  

vygramul: The Soviets figured out they lost the Cold War with SDI.


Yes, because they realised that they could never even begin the match the colossal amount of money that Reagan was willing to throw away on worthless and ineffective defence programmes.
 
2012-11-17 01:58:02 AM  

SavageWombat: Speaking of "Bar Wars", do we have crowbars in Low Earth Orbit yet? Kinetic kill weapons = fun


I can check, Dr. Freeman.
 
2012-11-17 01:59:31 AM  

Gordon Bennett: vygramul: The Soviets figured out they lost the Cold War with SDI.

Yes, because they realised that they could never even begin the match the colossal amount of money that Reagan was willing to throw away on worthless and ineffective defence programmes.


They saw Reagan's ideas and thought..."holy crap, we can't possibly meet that level of insanity".
 
2012-11-17 02:00:58 AM  
no because i'm not 60 years old
 
2012-11-17 02:06:07 AM  

falcon176: no because i'm not 60 years old


Whoa, falcon, that is harsh! I am 40 and I remember Reagan making science a joke.
 
2012-11-17 02:35:18 AM  
There's a great book I read in the 80's called War Day, about two journalists traveling through a post-war America after nuclear war between the Soviets and the US. In the book, the USSR decided they couldn't tolerate a US missile shield and went ahead with a first strike just as our space shuttle was positioning the first defense satellite in orbit. From there the Russians detonated nukes high in the atmosphere to destroy much of the Western hemisphere's electronics via EMP, followed by Russian "communications" satellites ejecting nukes directly down onto the missile fields in North Dakota. Finally the American President orders a full counter strike seconds before Air Force Once makes a crash landing on an East Coast beach.

Great book and as a young kid it scared the shiat out of me regarding the kind of mess the whole world would be in if there ever had been a hot war.
 
2012-11-17 02:53:56 AM  

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


Must have reverse engineered the ones we gave them.
 
2012-11-17 02:56:52 AM  

Lsherm: vygramul: Lsherm: Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.

Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.

The Patriot SAM-D pre-dates Reagan. It might have gained some development advantages from SDI, as I'm sure several systems did, but I don't think it's reasonable to call Patriot an outgrowth of SDI.

For fark's sake, as I've noted before (In the post you just quoted, and many before it), the missile to missile strategy was a direct result of SDI. Before that it was an anti-aircraft program.


No, no, no. It was not and never was. ABM technology was something sought after in the 60's...WELL before SDI. And unless you have access to what I read, you have no idea what you are talking about..I'll leave it at that.

I just want to ask you one thing: what technology from the SDI program ended up in the Patriot system? Mind you...let me help you out....we were still in the ABM treaty in the 80s. If anything, SDI diverted research money from improving SAM systems in the U.S. And, oh by the way, the Patriot developmental program showed it could theoretically hit or engage enemy missiles.....in the 70s.

And just to put this to bed, and stop this silly "SDI developed everything and Reagan was a scientific visionary" nonsense....here is a little gem from Raytheon's head of missile development from way back when (and this isn't even classified material):


In June 1983, the Army decided to expand the missile's role. Not just enemy aircraft would be targeted but also short-range missiles. The Raytheon Company, maker of the Patriot, says the decision was based on intelligence estimates of Soviet missile threats, not Star Wars. "It's my judgment that it would have happened without Reagan," said Robert Stein, head of advanced defense work at the company's missile systems division in Bedford, Mass.

And this one from 1991:
Angelo Codevilla, a former aide to Senator Wallop who is now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, said one reason for the Patriot's success was that it never became entangled in the quest for an impenetrable shield. "Thank God S.D.I. never touched it," he said. "This was the only system that escaped being destroyed by Star Wars."
 
2012-11-17 02:58:01 AM  

Mi-5: Lsherm: vygramul: Lsherm: Mi-5: If anything (and I know a lot of the info is classified) the Patriot grew out of the old Nike Hercules system, which we had to scale back due to the ABM treaty. We developed the Patriot as a SAM system, and due to the much better technology.....we found out it could handle theatre missile threats, and we could skirt the ABM treaty by employing it. BY saying it grew out of Star Wars is disingenuous at best.

Look, I'm not on some kind of warpath here, it's just how it played out. Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft program, it was co-opted into an anti-missile program for SDI (Star Wars) in the 80's, and it morphed into local theater protection in the 90's. The missile to missile objective was specifically a result of SDI, and the technology for that started development under the SDI program.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit this. It's what happened. Isn't this what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing? Reinventing history? Is it really that difficult to admit that a very small part of the SDI eventually became something useful? Do you have a problem with GPS? That was a military project as well.

The Patriot SAM-D pre-dates Reagan. It might have gained some development advantages from SDI, as I'm sure several systems did, but I don't think it's reasonable to call Patriot an outgrowth of SDI.

For fark's sake, as I've noted before (In the post you just quoted, and many before it), the missile to missile strategy was a direct result of SDI. Before that it was an anti-aircraft program.

No, no, no. It was not and never was. ABM technology was something sought after in the 60's...WELL before SDI. And unless you have access to what I read, you have no idea what you are talking about..I'll leave it at that.

I just want to ask you one thing: what technology from the SDI program ended up in the Patriot system? Mind you...let me help you out....we were still in the ABM treaty in the 80s. If anything, S ...


LSherm has a hardon over Reagan. Weird, I guess but...
 
2012-11-17 03:00:18 AM  
Star Wars was lasers shooting down rockets from satellites orbiting earth
This is missiles hitting other missiles, same as we saw in Iraq 20 years ago

Not sure if anyone mentioned this. I think maybe they did
 
2012-11-17 03:16:33 AM  
Remember the first days of the 1991 Iraq war, when Patriots were shooting down all the Scuds, and we sold truckloads of Patriots. And then later it turned out that their effectiveness was much overstated?

The point of SDI wasn't to create a missile defense system. It was to force the USSR to spend the money to keep up with our research, and they were broke.
 
2012-11-17 03:37:11 AM  

Dear Jerk: Remember the first days of the 1991 Iraq war, when Patriots were shooting down all the Scuds, and we sold truckloads of Patriots. And then later it turned out that their effectiveness was much overstated?

The point of SDI wasn't to create a missile defense system. It was to force the USSR to spend the money to keep up with our research, and they were broke.


Bullshiat, the USSR was already beyond the point of no return.
 
2012-11-17 03:37:57 AM  
Has anyone pointed out to subby that "Star Wars" was about shooting down ICBMs from space and not shooting down rockets from Hamas?

No?
 
2012-11-17 03:39:55 AM  

Dear Jerk: Remember the first days of the 1991 Iraq war, when Patriots were shooting down all the Scuds, and we sold truckloads of Patriots. And then later it turned out that their effectiveness was much overstated?

The point of SDI wasn't to create a missile defense system. It was to force the USSR to spend the money to keep up with our research, and they were broke.


I remember it really farking well.

/it was hotter than hell
 
2012-11-17 04:47:35 AM  
cdn.theunlockr.com
 
2012-11-17 05:38:34 AM  
Star Wars involved lasers from space, this is just an upgraded and better patriot missile system.
 
2012-11-17 06:03:36 AM  
A better name for the Patriot/Iron Dome would be Guernica

It's gross fomenting a war where both sides have sympathetic victims. But it's a real boon for weapons development and political techniques of hell.
 
2012-11-17 06:24:54 AM  
Wasn't "Iron Dome" a Bond villain?
 
2012-11-17 06:36:09 AM  

Loucifer: Wasn't "Iron Dome" a Bond villain?


Chrome Dome. From The Tick.
 
2012-11-17 08:14:06 AM  

unyon: Meh. This technology has been around since the early 80s.

[www.google.ca image 400x267]


My thought too. I wonder how many quarters I pumped into that machine.

Also Star Wars Won't Work

Sorry Frank, you can't be right about everything - not that this is exactly Star Wars.
 
2012-11-17 08:23:35 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: xynix: FlashHarry: yeah, that's not star wars. more like better-working patriot missiles.

This or whatever.

Also, we don't know that the Starwars Program was ever scrapped. With the huge amount of money being pumped into globe destroying weapons in the 80s and shiatty accountability it would be easy to scrape off .1% and it never be noticed. I'm not a tin hat guy by any means but we ARE talking about Reagan and later Cheney.

SM-3 block 1B, baby.

The warhead is terrifying.


Also this.

Burnt Frost
 
2012-11-17 08:40:18 AM  

Lsherm: 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.

Figured. We had already worked it out for our project, but the actual live testing of it failed. The problem itself seems to have been solved by anti-blur digital camera technology. Funny how things work out.


I said in the ballpark, not that you identified the problem.
 
2012-11-17 08:49:24 AM  

Mi-5: No, no, no. It was not and never was. ABM technology was something sought after in the 60's...WELL before SDI. And unless you have access to what I read, you have no idea what you are talking about..I'll leave it at that.


You don't even need access to what you read. It's a completely different problem, and it's only people's superficial understanding of the physics and engineering considerations that can fool them into falling for these kinds of talking points.
 
2012-11-17 08:50:44 AM  

Big Dave: There's a great book I read in the 80's called War Day, about two journalists traveling through a post-war America after nuclear war between the Soviets and the US. In the book, the USSR decided they couldn't tolerate a US missile shield and went ahead with a first strike just as our space shuttle was positioning the first defense satellite in orbit. From there the Russians detonated nukes high in the atmosphere to destroy much of the Western hemisphere's electronics via EMP, followed by Russian "communications" satellites ejecting nukes directly down onto the missile fields in North Dakota. Finally the American President orders a full counter strike seconds before Air Force Once makes a crash landing on an East Coast beach.

Great book and as a young kid it scared the shiat out of me regarding the kind of mess the whole world would be in if there ever had been a hot war.


Along those lines, check out Resurection Day. 10 years after the cuban missile crisis went hot. The US won, but it was costly.
 
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