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 68
    More: Spiffy, Iron Dome, iron, Gaza Strip, air defence, mortar shells, interceptors, Palestinian militants, rockets  
•       •       •

3680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 8:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-16 05:22:30 PM  
10 votes:
Let me know when they start shooting down rockets with space based lasers.
2012-11-16 05:30:05 PM  
7 votes:
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 05:23:47 PM  
7 votes:
yeah, that's not star wars. more like better-working patriot missiles.
2012-11-16 05:51:11 PM  
6 votes:
Subby is an idiot
2012-11-16 09:00:30 PM  
5 votes:
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 05:30:57 PM  
4 votes:
I'm trying to decide if Subby really is dumb enough to think Grad rockets are exactly the same as ICBMs.
2012-11-16 09:23:37 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:32:30 PM  
3 votes:
also, those look suspiciously like the Patriot missile defense systems.
2012-11-16 05:24:33 PM  
3 votes:
Israel has weapons in space?
2012-11-17 12:23:36 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-11-16 11:47:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:44:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:30:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 09:16:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:12:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:52:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:38:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:37:21 PM  
2 votes:
SUBBY = IDIOT
2012-11-16 08:34:53 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:15:56 PM  
2 votes:
Then can we quit worrying about nukes in Iran?
2012-11-16 06:00:44 PM  
2 votes:
Meh. This technology has been around since the early 80s.

www.google.ca
2012-11-16 05:56:31 PM  
2 votes:
Hamas shot first?

Oh, wrong Star Wars.... sorry.

/not really sorry
//slashies
2012-11-16 05:30:16 PM  
2 votes:
Theater level missile defense is not the same as shooting down a real ICBM, subby.
2012-11-17 11:05:42 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:23:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:06:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:22:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:07:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:52 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-16 11:48:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:24:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:43:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:32:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:06 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:01:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:00 PM  
1 votes:
So it seems to be pretty well covered, but to sum up:

Star Wars =/= all missile/rocket defense
2012-11-16 09:33:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:31:35 PM  
1 votes:
I think you missed the main reason why it was labeled STAR wars, submittard
2012-11-16 09:24:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:19:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:18:43 PM  
1 votes:
www.thereaganvision.org

Not particularly useful against an insurgency.
2012-11-16 09:12:35 PM  
1 votes:
Now that's what I call a troll headline subby.

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

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 09:06:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:57:02 PM  
1 votes:
I see subby has been mocked for being the drooling retard he really is.
2012-11-16 08:56:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

furiousxgeorge: Not an ICBM.

 

1.bp.blogspot.com

Take this you dirty Jews!!!11!
2012-11-16 08:46:05 PM  
1 votes:
Not an ICBM.

i.imgur.com
2012-11-16 08:46:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:43:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:40:59 PM  
1 votes:
Has anyone pointed out that subby is a complete idiot yet?
2012-11-16 08:40:43 PM  
1 votes:
Wow... only 30-some posts and this is already probably the most epic Subby beat-down I have ever seen.
2012-11-16 08:39:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:03:00 PM  
1 votes:
I don't recall.
2012-11-16 06:56:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:47:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:06:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:36:20 PM  
1 votes:
Did anyone mention that this has nothing to do with Star Wars and everything to do with the Patriot missile system?
2012-11-16 05:25:31 PM  
1 votes:
Someone is firing ICBMs at Israel?
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report