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
 
2012-11-16 05:22:30 PM
Let me know when they start shooting down rockets with space based lasers.
 
2012-11-16 05:23:47 PM
yeah, that's not star wars. more like better-working patriot missiles.
 
2012-11-16 05:24:33 PM
Israel has weapons in space?
 
2012-11-16 05:25:31 PM
Someone is firing ICBMs at Israel?
 
2012-11-16 05:30:05 PM
this is more like the Red Shield thing that the USSR was working on, land based missile defense. This is nothing at all like Star Wars.
 
2012-11-16 05:30:16 PM
Theater level missile defense is not the same as shooting down a real ICBM, subby.
 
2012-11-16 05:30:57 PM
I'm trying to decide if Subby really is dumb enough to think Grad rockets are exactly the same as ICBMs.
 
2012-11-16 05:32:30 PM
also, those look suspiciously like the Patriot missile defense systems.
 
2012-11-16 05:36:20 PM
Did anyone mention that this has nothing to do with Star Wars and everything to do with the Patriot missile system?
 
2012-11-16 05:51:11 PM
Subby is an idiot
 
2012-11-16 05:56:31 PM
Hamas shot first?

Oh, wrong Star Wars.... sorry.

/not really sorry
//slashies
 
2012-11-16 06:00:44 PM
Meh. This technology has been around since the early 80s.

www.google.ca
 
2012-11-16 06:06:14 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 06:47:53 PM

xynix: 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.


Indeed - why waste money that could be better spent on nun-raping murderers?
 
2012-11-16 06:50:06 PM

cannotsuggestaname: also, those look suspiciously like the Patriot missile defense systems.


That's because the Israelis borrowed the design from us. Plus their name is way more cool: "Iron Dome".
 
2012-11-16 06:53:22 PM
Star Wars in Israel?

Help me Moshe Wan Kenobiwitz, you're our only hope.
 
2012-11-16 06:56:56 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 07:15:56 PM
Then can we quit worrying about nukes in Iran?
 
2012-11-16 07:49:31 PM
"Reagan is crazy" is working in Israel? Good.
 
2012-11-16 07:59:23 PM
Next thing you know they'll be selling weapons to Iran and hosting 'Death Valley Days'.
 
2012-11-16 08:03:00 PM
I don't recall.
 
2012-11-16 08:34:53 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 08:35:46 PM
Even the modern version didn't work.
 
2012-11-16 08:35:48 PM

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


Done in one.
 
2012-11-16 08:37:21 PM
SUBBY = IDIOT
 
2012-11-16 08:38:21 PM
Didn't the "Star Wars" defense system actually fail in "Star Wars"?

"We count thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader, but they're so small they're evading our turbolasers."
 
2012-11-16 08:38:44 PM

Remember when everybody on the Rightand left was saying "Man will never visit outer space, Jules Verne is crazy"?

img560.imageshack.us 
 
2012-11-16 08:39:27 PM

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


Done in one.

/"STAR" wars.... as in 'space'!!!
 
2012-11-16 08:39:58 PM
I am curious how the Iron Dome might compare, or be aided by, Phalanx or more modern CIWS.

At $30K per Tamir missile, and an inability to counter rockets that are too close, I wonder if a Phalanx system could be quickly set up to help out.

Difficulty: Israelis may not be interested in having Phalanx rounds falling down on them?

Also, subby is an idiot.
 
2012-11-16 08:40:09 PM
Iron Dome theory is not the same as the Star Wars project.

/And the iron dome doesn't catch all the missiles anyway.
 
2012-11-16 08:40:15 PM
Oh goody. I have no doubt that this will finally be the weapon to end all wars. There's no way technology could be designed to easily evade such defenses, if they were deployed. We'll be safe forever.
 
2012-11-16 08:40:17 PM
Grand Meshugana Tarkin frowns upon subby's headline.
 
2012-11-16 08:40:43 PM
Wow... only 30-some posts and this is already probably the most epic Subby beat-down I have ever seen.
 
2012-11-16 08:40:59 PM
Has anyone pointed out that subby is a complete idiot yet?
 
2012-11-16 08:41:59 PM
Let's say this happens: They start doing massive rocket attacks, like, 100/200 rockets per minute, like if they were using dozens of Katyusha rocket launchers . How many would enter Israeli space?.
 
2012-11-16 08:42:01 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com 
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-16 08:42:36 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Moshe Wan Kenobiwitz


Oi vay!
 
2012-11-16 08:42:36 PM

xynix: 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.


When Bush Jr took office in 2001, they made missile defense a huge priority.

Fighting terrorism was was removed entirely the priority list.

I guess when they were told "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" they assumed he would be lobbing ICBMs over Alaska.
 
2012-11-16 08:43:32 PM
I remember that Han shot first, and that Reagan had Alzheimer's.
 
2012-11-16 08:43:54 PM
Guess how I know subby is an idiot? Why, yes, it does have something to do with him having no idea what he's talking about.
 
2012-11-16 08:43:56 PM

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
 
2012-11-16 08:45:24 PM
Silly question, but where do these 2 colliding rockets land crash into the ground?
 
2012-11-16 08:46:04 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 08:46:05 PM
Not an ICBM.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-16 08:47:25 PM
The arguments against SDI were always..... less than convincing. I think a lot of people just didn't want it because Reagan wanted it.
 
2012-11-16 08:47:52 PM

Barfmaker: Did anyone mention that this has nothing to do with Star Wars and everything to do with the Patriot missile system?


I don't think so. Maybe you should mention it
 
2012-11-16 08:49:11 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 08:49:56 PM

furiousxgeorge: Not an ICBM.

 

1.bp.blogspot.com

Take this you dirty Jews!!!11!
 
2012-11-16 08:50:07 PM

Dalrint: he iron dome doesn't catch all the missiles anyway.


god damn waste of money. bloated government.
secede already!
 
2012-11-16 08:50:20 PM
img696.imageshack.us

Zombie Reagan approves...
Don't forget he single handily crushed the Evil Empire also!
 
2012-11-16 08:51:07 PM
www.starwarsautographcollecting.com

"May the Schwartz be with you!"
 
2012-11-16 08:51:40 PM
At least one Barak is keeping his country safe.
 
2012-11-16 08:52:11 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.


Oh God STFU with your decades old Republican tears. Reagan was worshiped by the left compared to what the right does to Obama and did to Clinton.
 
2012-11-16 08:53:41 PM
"Thirty year old butthurt released in Fark headline, smells like brylcreem and tears"
 
2012-11-16 08:56:11 PM
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.
 
2012-11-16 08:56:18 PM
You're an idiot, stubby.

/back when I was "our children," my future was also mortgaged.
//for GIANT farkING SPACE LAZORS
///SPACE LAZORS GOD DAMMIT
 
2012-11-16 08:56:20 PM

CygnusDarius: Let's say this happens: They start doing massive rocket attacks, like, 100/200 rockets per minute, like if they were using dozens of Katyusha rocket launchers . How many would enter Israeli space?.


Depends. Since Gaza is technically IN Israel, the correct answer would be "all of them."
 
2012-11-16 08:56:58 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.


Well, if it had worked the way Reagan wanted it, it would've given us first-strike capability without the fear of MAD. A lot of people (outside of America) had a good reason to see that possibility as troubling.
 
2012-11-16 08:57:02 PM
I see subby has been mocked for being the drooling retard he really is.
 
2012-11-16 08:57:04 PM

furiousxgeorge: Not an ICBM.

[i.imgur.com image 666x599]


Looks like some of the things my brother and I built in the garage. (4) D Estes engines and some carpet tube. Synchronizing ignition was always the problem.
 
2012-11-16 08:57:13 PM
Subs,

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-16 08:57:13 PM
Barak's ministry said he wanted to draw from the $3 billion in annual U.S. defence grants to help pay for Iron Dome's expansion. Some $550 million has been spent over the past five years on Iron Dome development and manufacturing, it said.........Good place to start cutting
 
2012-11-16 08:57:30 PM
Shooting down these?
2.bp.blogspot.com
With this? Seems a waste
i.i.com.com
Wouldn't this work better?
img.defencetalk.com
 
2012-11-16 08:58:44 PM

furiousxgeorge: 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.

Oh God STFU with your decades old Republican tears. Reagan was worshiped by the left compared to what the right does to Obama and did to Clinton.


I don't give a f*ck about reagan, I care about douchebags like yourself lying about why you attacked the one defense initiative in the history of the world that was unconditionally defensive as if it was the development of a virus to murder black lesbian children in africa. now you all are lying about what you actually were arguing was a ridiculous expenditure. you are all just like the retards on the right, but have some delusion that you base your support for policies on science and reason.
 
2012-11-16 09:00:24 PM

AngryTeacher: At least one Barak is keeping his country safe.


I know! I for one am SICK and TIRED of dodging Hamas missiles on my way to work, and it's about damn TIME "0"bama did something about it!

/amidoinitrite?
 
2012-11-16 09:00:30 PM
Star Wars didn't work, and he was crazy.

Even today, there's only about a 90% success rate on anti-missile weapons, and that's when we know exactly when they're going to be fired, what their vector will be, what size they will be, and we have all our anti-missile weapons powered up and waiting.

There are 13,000 nuclear warheads in Russia.

Let's assume 50% are pointed at the US, 50% are pointed at other targets: 6,500 pointed at us.

Out of that 6,500, let's assume 50% actually work, and 50% fail to fire correctly: 3,250

Out of that 3,250, let's assume that, despite the history of testing and results, star wars works with never-before-achieved accuracy and gets 99% of the incoming warheads: 3, 217.

3,250 - 3, 217 = 33.

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.

But it gets scarier.

Let's assume only 50% of those weapons are aimed at cities (many will be aimed at non-urban targets like King's Bay, and let's also assume there's a 50% overlap, so some cities get hit twice. That's still enough to rip the guts out of:

- New York (major population and financial center, port)
- LA (ditto)
- Chicago (ditto)
- DC (seat of government)
- Philly (see NYC)
- Houston (nation's biggest oil port)
- New Orleans (nation's biggest grain port, oil a close second)
- San Diego (home of the West Coast navy)
- Norfolk/Va Beach (home of the East Coast navy)

And that's at a bare bones minimum. Other cities highly likely to be destroyed even under this absurdly unlikely 'successful' defensive scenario: San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose/silicon valley, Denver, St. Louis, Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Miami.

So: even in a best-case scenario, we lose pretty much every major city in the country (think, 'if it has a MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL franchise, it's dead), along with all of our financial centers, seats of federal administration, a good chunk of our command and control, most of our ports, most of our fuel, and we have a poisoned breadbasket. But we could win. Honest.

Star Wars doesn't work. It can't. Simple math won't allow it.
 
2012-11-16 09:04:08 PM
Israel has satellites with frikkin' laser beams now?
 
2012-11-16 09:04:33 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.


How about the argument that it did not work and 30 years later it still does not work.
 
2012-11-16 09:04:53 PM

Kanemano: Shooting down these?

With this? Seems a waste

Wouldn't this work better?


Too high and fast, if you have a small area, like the green zone, those work. Iron dome does have a system to try to avoid shooting down rockets heading towards open areas.

With iron dome, magic wand and the arrow system Israel will be the first nation with a total missile shield
 
2012-11-16 09:05:25 PM

AngryTeacher: At least one Barak is keeping his country safe.


True. The U.S. doesn't have rockets falling in it right now.
 
2012-11-16 09:05:26 PM
Wait, they have satellites orbiting the planet that can shoot lasers that take out missiles?

Wait, they don't? The program isn't based in space at all? So, subby doesn't have a clue what Star Wars was supposed to be?
 
2012-11-16 09:06:38 PM
Or put more simply:

modernsurvivalblog.com

/ stolen from a survivalist crazy website
// they may be crazy, but they do know the realities of nuclear strategy
 
2012-11-16 09:08:18 PM

relcec: furiousxgeorge: 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.

Oh God STFU with your decades old Republican tears. Reagan was worshiped by the left compared to what the right does to Obama and did to Clinton.

I don't give a f*ck about reagan, I care about douchebags like yourself lying about why you attacked the one defense initiative in the history of the world that was unconditionally defensive as if it was the development of a virus to murder black lesbian children in africa. now you all are lying about what you actually were arguing was a ridiculous expenditure. you are all just like the retards on the right, but have some delusion that you base your support for policies on science and reason.


Dude I was like 5, I didn't attack shiat. Nobody cares about your decades old man crush on Reagen. Go make out with his portrait some more and leave the rest of us here in the 21st century alone.
 
2012-11-16 09:09:28 PM

whistleridge: Star Wars doesn't work. It can't. Simple math won't allow it.


Those weren't the only plot holes. I mean, if the gunners on the Imperial Star Destroyer had simply destroyed all the lifepods that had ejected from the Rebel Blockade Runner, the rebels never wouldn't gotten the secret data tapes. . .
 
2012-11-16 09:09:47 PM
Hamas has been firing scratch built unguided rockets mostly...and a LOT of them. The volume is kind of staggering.

I think some sort of CIWS could work I'd think.

So far as the StarWars thing... When have we ever NOT been working on effective Missile Defense...theater level as well as hemispherical?. Since like the early 1950's? I'm on the "Left" and I was never against it...but the tech Reagan was talking about was not remotely feasible in the early 80s. But intercepting missiles and ICBMs especially is a REALLY farkING TRICKY thing to do.
People rag on the Patriots because of the low success rate during Gulf war 1... But A. That first dismisses that they did score hits, and those missile intercepts add up considering they were over heavily populated areas. And B. was 20 godam years ago.
In 1991 a mobile phone required its own car battery to operate...we've come aloooong way since the Patriot and GW1.


We even have a working model of a freaking plasma beam weapon. Airborne. Pew pew.
 
2012-11-16 09:09:52 PM
well it ain't no brilliant
taylorseast.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-16 09:11:12 PM

relcec: furiousxgeorge: 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.

Oh God STFU with your decades old Republican tears. Reagan was worshiped by the left compared to what the right does to Obama and did to Clinton.

I don't give a f*ck about reagan, I care about douchebags like yourself lying about why you attacked the one defense initiative in the history of the world that was unconditionally defensive as if it was the development of a virus to murder black lesbian children in africa. now you all are lying about what you actually were arguing was a ridiculous expenditure. you are all just like the retards on the right, but have some delusion that you base your support for policies on science and reason.


Man, don't let people push your buttons so easy. this crap isn't worth getting pissed about.
 
2012-11-16 09:12:01 PM

whistleridge: Star Wars didn't work, and he was crazy.

Even today, there's only about a 90% success rate on anti-missile weapons, and that's when we know exactly when they're going to be fired, what their vector will be, what size they will be, and we have all our anti-missile weapons powered up and waiting.

There are 13,000 nuclear warheads in Russia.

Let's assume 50% are pointed at the US, 50% are pointed at other targets: 6,500 pointed at us.

Out of that 6,500, let's assume 50% actually work, and 50% fail to fire correctly: 3,250

Out of that 3,250, let's assume that, despite the history of testing and results, star wars works with never-before-achieved accuracy and gets 99% of the incoming warheads: 3, 217.

3,250 - 3, 217 = 33.

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.

But it gets scarier.

Let's assume only 50% of those weapons are aimed at cities (many will be aimed at non-urban targets like King's Bay, and let's also assume there's a 50% overlap, so some cities get hit twice. That's still enough to rip the guts out of:

- New York (major population and financial center, port)
- LA (ditto)
- Chicago (ditto)
- DC (seat of government)
- Philly (see NYC)
- Houston (nation's biggest oil port)
- New Orleans (nation's biggest grain port, oil a close second)
- San Diego (home of the West Coast navy)
- Norfolk/Va Beach (home of the East Coast navy)

And that's at a bare bones minimum. Other cities highly likely to be destroyed even under this absurdly unlikely 'successful' defensive ...


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. The whole global-warfare thing is still to this day predicated on the idea that not only is it survivable, the US will be the one who a) wins and b) wins with our population and infrastructure essentially intact.

And that's just a nuclear scenario. Throw in chemical or biowarfare weapons, and survivability becomes pretty much zero under any circumstances; and yet the planners will STILL insist we (meaning the US) will a) win and b) win with our population and infrastructure intact. It's all b/s of course. Society will probably survive (cf. the Black Death in Europe) but it won't be pretty and it won't be the US we know today. But nobody wants to hear that either.
 
2012-11-16 09:12:20 PM
gapersblock.com 

I thought SW was the Gipper's plan to fight dental decay.
 
2012-11-16 09:12:35 PM
Now that's what I call a troll headline subby.

/stupid comparison btw
 
2012-11-16 09:12:41 PM

zedster: Kanemano: Shooting down these?

With this? Seems a waste

Wouldn't this work better?

Too high and fast, if you have a small area, like the green zone, those work. Iron dome does have a system to try to avoid shooting down rockets heading towards open areas.

With iron dome, magic wand and the arrow system Israel will be the first nation with a total missile shield


Or a really good D and D guild
 
2012-11-16 09:12:54 PM

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).
 
2012-11-16 09:15:04 PM

whistleridge: Or put more simply:

[modernsurvivalblog.com image 850x537]

/ stolen from a survivalist crazy website
// they may be crazy, but they do know the realities of nuclear strategy


I've lived now in three places that were probably very high on Soviet target lists and would therefore now be high on Russian target lists. New London, CT at the end of the Cold War for the base at Groton, Huntsville, AL for the massive agglomeration of aerospace companies not seen anywhere else except around Seattle and Washington DC, plus the Redstone Arsenal, and now Knoxville, TN for ORNL/Y-12.
 
2012-11-16 09:15:33 PM

whistleridge: Star Wars didn't work, and he was crazy.

Even today, there's only about a 90% success rate on anti-missile weapons, and that's when we know exactly when they're going to be fired, what their vector will be, what size they will be, and we have all our anti-missile weapons powered up and waiting.

There are 13,000 nuclear warheads in Russia.

Let's assume 50% are pointed at the US, 50% are pointed at other targets: 6,500 pointed at us.

Out of that 6,500, let's assume 50% actually work, and 50% fail to fire correctly: 3,250

Out of that 3,250, let's assume that, despite the history of testing and results, star wars works with never-before-achieved accuracy and gets 99% of the incoming warheads: 3, 217.

3,250 - 3, 217 = 33.

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.

But it gets scarier.

Let's assume only 50% of those weapons are aimed at cities (many will be aimed at non-urban targets like King's Bay, and let's also assume there's a 50% overlap, so some cities get hit twice. That's still enough to rip the guts out of:

- New York (major population and financial center, port)
- LA (ditto)
- Chicago (ditto)
- DC (seat of government)
- Philly (see NYC)
- Houston (nation's biggest oil port)
- New Orleans (nation's biggest grain port, oil a close second)
- San Diego (home of the West Coast navy)
- Norfolk/Va Beach (home of the East Coast navy)

And that's at a bare bones minimum. Other cities highly likely to be destroyed even under this absurdly unlikely 'successful' defensive ...


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.
 
2012-11-16 09:16:18 PM

whistleridge: Star Wars didn't work, and he was crazy.


Other than firing missiles from the ground to take out incoming bomb systems there is virtually nothing in common with Reagan's vision. He described some sort of global system of ground and space based missile defense. No such thing exists or is even remotely close to even coming close to existing. The fact that there are local, theatre-based systems that can counter incoming missiles can possibly be attributed to Reagan's vision, but calling it 'star wars' as if it was Reagan's invention is farking moranic.
 
2012-11-16 09:17:44 PM
I'll make you a deal - we'll spend as much money as you want on SDI missile defense, as long as we spend an equal amount on green energy research.
 
2012-11-16 09:18:01 PM

whistleridge: Or put more simply:

[modernsurvivalblog.com image 850x537]

/ stolen from a survivalist crazy website
// they may be crazy, but they do know the realities of nuclear strategy


So, you are saying Las vegas would survive a nuclear war?, I better tell Mr. House.
 
2012-11-16 09:18:43 PM
www.thereaganvision.org

Not particularly useful against an insurgency.
 
2012-11-16 09:18:53 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.


Obviously you missed my later post re block 1b. Search the thread for "block 1b", watch the video, and then tell me that's not the coolest multi-vehicle space interceptor in the history of mankind.
 
2012-11-16 09:19:13 PM
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.

Sure, After Reagen they changed it to that.

In his 1991 State of the Union Address George H. W. Bush shifted the focus of SDI from defense of North America against large scale strikes to a system focusing on theater missile defense called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS).[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#History
 
2012-11-16 09:20:19 PM

whistleridge: Star Wars didn't work, and he was crazy.

Even today, there's only about a 90% success rate on anti-missile weapons, and that's when we know exactly when they're going to be fired, what their vector will be, what size they will be, and we have all our anti-missile weapons powered up and waiting.

There are 13,000 nuclear warheads in Russia.

Let's assume 50% are pointed at the US, 50% are pointed at other targets: 6,500 pointed at us.

Out of that 6,500, let's assume 50% actually work, and 50% fail to fire correctly: 3,250

Out of that 3,250, let's assume that, despite the history of testing and results, star wars works with never-before-achieved accuracy and gets 99% of the incoming warheads: 3, 217.

3,250 - 3, 217 = 33.

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.

But it gets scarier.

Let's assume only 50% of those weapons are aimed at cities (many will be aimed at non-urban targets like King's Bay, and let's also assume there's a 50% overlap, so some cities get hit twice. That's still enough to rip the guts out of:

- New York (major population and financial center, port)
- LA (ditto)
- Chicago (ditto)
- DC (seat of government)
- Philly (see NYC)
- Houston (nation's biggest oil port)
- New Orleans (nation's biggest grain port, oil a close second)
- San Diego (home of the West Coast navy)
- Norfolk/Va Beach (home of the East Coast navy)

And that's at a bare bones minimum. Other cities highly likely to be destroyed even under this absurdly unlikely 'successful' defensive ...


So you're saying we'd end up like . . .


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-16 09:21:01 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. The whole global-warfare thing is still to this day predicated on the idea that not only is it survivable, the US will be the one who a) wins and b) wins with our population and infrastructure essentially intact.

And that's just a nuclear scenario. Throw in chemical or biowarfare weapons, and survivability becomes pretty much zero under any circumstances; and yet the planners will STILL insist we (meaning the US) will a) win and b) win with our population and infrastructure intact. It's all b/s of course. Society will probably survive (cf. the Black Death in Europe) but it won't be pretty and it won't be the US we know today. But nobody wants to hear that either.


Yeah, general discussion is that the 'minimum' scenario would be 500 warheads, the 'likely' would be 2000, and the 'worst possible' would be 5000 - 10000.That pretty much turns every civilized part of the country into a self-illuminating glass parking lot, and the parts that don't die fast will die slow over the next few months. If we didn't shoot back, the rest of the world could probably survive, but...we would.

GAT_00: I've lived now in three places that were probably very high on Soviet target lists and would therefore now be high on Russian target lists. New London, CT at the end of the Cold War for the base at Groton, Huntsville, AL for the massive agglomeration of aerospace companies not seen anywhere else except around Seattle and Washington DC, plus the Redstone Arsenal, and now Knoxville, TN for ORNL/Y-12.


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--'
 
2012-11-16 09:21:29 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.


I was focusing on the space based laser systems which is where all money went and was an impractical and stupid idea.

I was always a fan of land based systems although I question how well they work since the fiasco with the Patriot.
 
2012-11-16 09:23:37 PM

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.


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.
 
2012-11-16 09:24:20 PM

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.
 
2012-11-16 09:25:41 PM
"The system has shot down 192 such missiles since fighting flared up on Wednesday, the Defence Ministry said."

As long as it is a from credible source.

I remember what was said about the patriot missiles during the gulf war: "stops everything" and after:" stop nothing". I also remember the videos showing how well they worked, videos that were debunked after the war Anyone who was an adult back then should be very skeptical of the current situation. It is very likely that the technology works better now but I'd rather hear it from a neutral source as both Hamas and Israel can have excellent reason to lie about the effectiveness of the system.

The fact that Israel is ordering more does not mean it works, it might be a political decision to re-assure the public. Or it might simply be that someone at the defense ministry personally has something to gain from more Iron Dome system being produced.
 
2012-11-16 09:28:32 PM
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.
 
2012-11-16 09:28:58 PM

cannotsuggestaname: also, those look suspiciously like the Patriot missile defense systems.


They're are from the Raytheon "Pontiac" division.
 
2012-11-16 09:29:24 PM
Trolleriffic, douchemitter.
 
2012-11-16 09:29:44 PM
stupid phone.
 
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?
 
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.
 
2012-11-17 08:51:14 AM

Surly U. Jest: 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


That was a HEAVILY modified SM-3.
 
2012-11-17 09:00:34 AM
Don't you just hate it when you see a stupid headline, go off to collect evidence of Subby's wrongness, then open the thread and discover that it has already been taken care of in abundance?

Oh well, this thread could still use some visual aides:

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-17 09:18:52 AM
Except for the fact that while Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system does intercept a large number of missiles the interception rate is well below 50%. When you are talking about ICBMs with nuclear warheads that interception rate would not quite do the trick.
 
2012-11-17 09:56:16 AM
It would be awesome if one of those Hamas rockets hits the Dome of the Rock. That would turn the entire Islamic world against Hamas.
 
2012-11-17 10:03:06 AM

runwiz: Except for the fact that while Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system does intercept a large number of missiles the interception rate is well below 50%. When you are talking about ICBMs with nuclear warheads that interception rate would not quite do the trick.


It would reduce the number of super mutants in the roving rape gangs in the hellish aftermath.
 
2012-11-17 10:15:04 AM
blastr.com

Jews in Spaaaaaaaaace!

\
 
2012-11-17 10:18:30 AM
the ussr had thousands of mirv icbms.
 
2012-11-17 10:29:03 AM

Relatively Obscure: Israel has weapons in space?


Of course it does: Link
 
2012-11-17 10:30:52 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It would be awesome if one of those Hamas rockets hits the Dome of the Rock. That would turn the entire Islamic world against Hamas.


Come on. You know better. Ignoring the conspiracy theories that would crop up of it REALLY being Israel, or that Iron Dome deflected the shot into the Dome of the Rock, or that it was really thermite explosives planted there a week earlier, or a US cruise missile, and so on, they'd STILL say it was Israel's fault for having created the situation where Palestinians were forced to defend themselves.
 
2012-11-17 10:54:20 AM

vygramul: 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.


The stated purpose was to reinforce the A. But in practice, both sides saw it as an attempt to get around it.

If I have 15,000 missiles, you can't get them all, regardless of their platform. But the damn thing are finicky, expensive, and dangerous to maintain, so both sides wanted to move to fewer numbers of cheaper and safer missiles. Fine. But without lots of careful mutual oversight, every 'improvement' by the other guy is labelled a prelude to a sneak attack by the crazies on your general staff, and you can't really afford to ignore him.

Result: offense is defense, defense is offense.
 
2012-11-17 10:54:37 AM

vygramul: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It would be awesome if one of those Hamas rockets hits the Dome of the Rock. That would turn the entire Islamic world against Hamas.

Come on. You know better. Ignoring the conspiracy theories that would crop up of it REALLY being Israel, or that Iron Dome deflected the shot into the Dome of the Rock, or that it was really thermite explosives planted there a week earlier, or a US cruise missile, and so on, they'd STILL say it was Israel's fault for having created the situation where Palestinians were forced to defend themselves.


Good point and sad but true :-P
 
2012-11-17 10:58:13 AM

whistleridge: vygramul: 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.

The stated purpose was to reinforce the A. But in practice, both sides saw it as an attempt to get around it.

If I have 15,000 missiles, you can't get them all, regardless of their platform. But the damn thing are finicky, expensive, and dangerous to maintain, so both sides wanted to move to fewer numbers of cheaper and safer missiles. Fine. But without lots of careful mutual oversight, every 'improvement' by the other guy is labelled a prelude to a sneak attack by the crazies on your general staff, and you can't really afford to ignore him.

Result: offense is defense, defense is offense.


Except you simply can't prevent the second strike. It's all about improving the A. SDI was the first real attempt at trying to get rid of the A.
 
2012-11-17 11:05:42 AM
Doesn't matter - We need to stop this because Israel engages in warfare and tactics to protect itself that somehow liberals have no problem when countries they like do the same since those countries are not full of Jews.
 
2012-11-17 11:14:31 AM

beta_plus: Doesn't matter - We need to stop this because Israel engages in warfare and tactics to protect itself that somehow liberals have no problem when countries they like do the same since those countries are not full of Jews.


Your post has nothing to do with the topic and also makes no sense.
 
2012-11-17 11:51:00 AM

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.


Next we'll have missiles using flares to distract defense missiles.

/did i just give away secret military intentions?
//fark it.
 
2012-11-17 01:31:48 PM
Except it's not like the star wars program in that it doesn't involve shooting ICBMs down with lasers...from space...you jackoff. It's a better version of the same weapons concept as the patriot missile system, which was put to use in the persian gulf war over 2 decades ago.
 
2012-11-17 05:13:07 PM

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.


apcmag.com
 
2012-11-17 05:17:08 PM

beta_plus: Doesn't matter - We need to stop this because Israel engages in warfare and tactics to protect itself that somehow liberals have no problem when countries they like do the same since those countries are not full of Jews.


It's weird how you believe that Democrats are the anti-Jewish party. Jewish voters (well, 70% of them) don't seem to believe that.


http://www.ijn.com/presidential-elections/2012-presidential-elections / 3542-how-the-jewish-vote-went
 
2012-11-17 05:38:43 PM

mrshowrules: runwiz: Except for the fact that while Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system does intercept a large number of missiles the interception rate is well below 50%. When you are talking about ICBMs with nuclear warheads that interception rate would not quite do the trick.


Do you have the actual interception rate? I was curious but my google-fu was weak. (also lazy)

It would reduce the number of super mutants in the roving rape gangs in the hellish aftermath.

Fluff was unclear as to whether or not Super Mutants still had genitalia after their gametes were all destroyed by the FEV "repairing" them.
 
2012-11-17 08:36:28 PM

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


I know this doesn't jive with your headcanon / narrative, but most political parties in Israel are socialist.
 
2012-11-18 12:16:42 AM

runwiz: Except for the fact that while Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system does intercept a large number of missiles the interception rate is well below 50%. When you are talking about ICBMs with nuclear warheads that interception rate would not quite do the trick.


Its designed to work that way.

See, Iron Dome warheads are pretty expensive, so the system doesn't intercept rockets that would land in unoccupied fields.
 
2012-11-18 01:54:35 AM

tuckeg: 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.


Meh, there were tons of problems within just that "ballpark" that are already public. Decoys, multiple warheads, dummy warheads, and my absolute favorite: warheads stored in satellites that were sent up under civilian programs and then let loose years later using nothing but gravity and mild course correction to hit a target. You don't have to be exact with a high yield nuclear weapon. Whether or not that tactic would have worked would be entirely based on the ability to keep a warhead in working order after an extended period of time in space. Countering it would be even more trouble because you'd have to constantly monitor every farking object in orbit and look for changes in real time.

Whatever fundamental problem you're referring to has probably already been solved by a service your kid uses on his iPhone but people don't realize it yet.
 
2012-11-18 11:16:15 AM

beta_plus: Doesn't matter - We need to stop this because Israel engages in warfare and tactics to protect itself that somehow liberals have no problem when countries they like do the same since those countries are not full of Jews.


Yes...if you keep pounding that chicken, I'm sure she'll eventually start to love it.
 
Displayed 223 of 223 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report