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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-17 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 23 of 223 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report