Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/31/2001 6:09:49 AM EDT
Personally I thing SDI is one big waste of money. First of all it doesn't work. Secondly it costs $100 million per test and we have tested it 4 or 5 times. The Pentagon plans to test it once every month. The system is setup where a "laser" is mounted on slow-ass 747 and it receives the coordinates and the "laser" somehow disarms the nuke. I'm thinking why don't we use this wasted money and build more Planes, Ships, Vehicles, Improve Military pay and benefits. But, Georgie is Hell-bent on building this POS. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 6:19:30 AM EDT
Back in the early 60's nobody believed we could go to the moon but we did in 9 short years. Yes I think it will work against a limited attack from small countries like Iraq and others. But never against anything like Russia, we will still have to rely on mutual destruction for that deterent. The other side benefit will be all the other technological advance that will come as a result of this. Hell, maybe someday we will finally have a "Plasma Laser Rifle" as a result of this stuff. sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 6:31:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 6:30:42 AM EDT by LARRYG]
With that type of thinking, we would not have: Jet airplanes upon which many of us get to faraway places much more quickly than recips. More efficient autos with electronics developed originally by defense projects. Personal Computers (they would be too large without the development of microcircuitry which came from defense projects) Satellites off which to bounce the signals for your various radio, TV, and several other forms of communications. AR-15s. Yes, Stoner and ArmaLite fought an uphill battle and the AR wasn't really accepted until Colt bought it. If Stoner, et al, had thought like this, they would have given up before they started. There are many more examples of things which we take for granted today that went through the 'it won't work and is too expensive' phase. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the system that Bush was pushing was based on a missile intercepting a missile. I thought the laser system was pushed by Reagan and died years ago.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 6:52:35 AM EDT
the SDI is like a gun: better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. all those other things you mentioned that we spend our money on will do absolutely nothing to stop 10, 20, 50, or even 100 or more missiles with who-knows-what on them speeding towards the U.S. to add to the list of what we wouldn't have if someone gave up because "others" said it was stupid: lightbulbs, Edison tried thousands, not hundred, thousands of times before he got it right. you wanna talk about being made fun of. any number of medical advances that have saved countless lives: penicillin, vaccines, surgical techniques, the list goes on. it doesn't work perfectly now. but tell me, when was the last time that you did something ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY the very FIRST time you tried it?
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:01:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 6:58:41 AM EDT by reconxl]
Originally Posted By ARlady: all those other things you mentioned that we spend our money on will do absolutely nothing to stop 10, 20, 50, or even 100 or more missiles with who-knows-what on them speeding towards the U.S.
View Quote
Just think if Russia launched 100 nukes!! THE WORLD IS OVER!!! SDI can't even shoot down one missle much less 10 or more! All they have to do is launch decoys, which SDI cannot detect. If nukes are launched by any country then its game over. [X]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:15:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By reconxl:
Originally Posted By ARlady: all those other things you mentioned that we spend our money on will do absolutely nothing to stop 10, 20, 50, or even 100 or more missiles with who-knows-what on them speeding towards the U.S.
View Quote
Just think if Russia launched 100 nukes!! THE WORLD IS OVER!!! SDI can't even shoot down one missle much less 10 or more! All they have to do is launch decoys, which SDI cannot detect. If nukes are launched by any country then its game over. [X]
View Quote
it can't shoot them all down YET! and who cares if SDI can't dectect decoys. by definition, a decoy does not present any real danger. so if SDI can't/doesn't destroy it, does it matter? the whole reason behind SDI is to prevent a launched nuke from wreaking havoc and devastation on the rest of the world. based on your logic, the mere existence of nukes is enough reason to sit back, pop the top on a six pack and wait for the end. i can't understand not wanting to pursue this initative just because it doesn't work perfectly right at this moment. to bring the point home a little bit more, i'm sure the first time you had sex wasn't among your best performances. what would you say if the girl (ignore for the moment that you most likely aren't with her anymore) said that it didn't work for her and she wasn't the least bit interested in doing it anymore just because it didn't work RIGHT NOW. even though you were bound to get better. kind of silly and stupid, heh?
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:19:52 AM EDT
Anything that is for the defense of this country is not a "Waste of Money". We got the money and we got the technology, WHY NOT?
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:20:41 AM EDT
I look at NMD as a big transfer of public money to defense contractors. Whether it works, I think, is of little importance to Bush & Co.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:26:19 AM EDT
Big waste of money. Will lead to a new arms race. Easy to decoy. Our biggest threat isn't from incoming nuclear missiles, but terrorists with a biological agent or a suitcase sized nuke.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:27:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:33:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: it can't shoot them all down YET! and who cares if SDI can't dectect decoys. by definition, a decoy does not present any real danger. so if SDI can't/doesn't destroy it, does it matter? the whole reason behind SDI is to prevent a launched nuke from wreaking havoc and devastation on the rest of the world. based on your logic, the mere existence of nukes is enough reason to sit back, pop the top on a six pack and wait for the end. I can't understand not wanting to pursue this initative just because it doesn't work perfectly right at this moment.
View Quote
SDI is only designed to protect the U.S. from Nuclear attack, not the "rest of the world". A decoy's purpose is to let the real threat get through. SDI has no way to combat this and the technology to do so isn't even on the near horizon. I don't think it is smart to anger realtions with Russia. By Breaking the ABM treaty it won't help relations. It not in the U.S. best interest to "wake a sleeping giant".
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:36:38 AM EDT
Mach1 has caught on to my point. Launching a nuke is to damn obvious. They will use subtler methods aka "suitcase nuke". With the countless billions of dollars we are spending on SDI we could be replacing out old and depleted fleet Naval Vessels, and upgrading out Planes and still have money left over.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:53:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 7:54:57 AM EDT by AR_Rifle]
With the countless billions of dollars we are spending on SDI we could be replacing out old and depleted fleet Naval Vessels, and upgrading out Planes and still have money left over.
View Quote
Upgrading obsolete hardware is not a good smart way to deal with high tech threat. Let's build something that make the other guys think twice about launching a nuclear attack, that is what we called "deterrent". If he knows that he can't hurt us and that we can hurt him, then the world will be free of nuke. The idea is to render their nuclear arsenal obsolete. It they are obsolete then lets get rid of them. If one is going into a war that one can't win then one has to make peace.... And if you are looking for a "Waste of Money" look somewhere else. I found those millions spent on finding about how cat fish reproduce or building a highway to the middle of nowhere is a waste of money.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 7:58:53 AM EDT
C'mon, if Russia shoots a 100 nukes, where in the world would you be able to hide from THAT fallout? But SDI, even if it is never deployed, will be a program that OUR COUNTRY should invest in, considering all the collateral advances in science, engineering, etc., that would naturally occur. Rather spend the money on welfare? Eric The(IThinkNot!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:03:14 AM EDT
my point about the "rest of the world" was that a nuke, no matter where it's aimed/kabooms, affects the entire world. in destroying them, not only do we protect ourselves from the initial blast/damage, but also prevent some serious side effects. i was not meaning that this is our primary purpose in SDI. decoys only work when attention is diverted from the real threat. i have a sneaky suspicion that one missile flying through the air is going to have a lot of people looking at every possible piece of the sky trying to find the rest. you don't really think that someone would be stupid enough to think that the one missile is "the" attack, do you? as far as breaking the ABM treaty. whatever, the treaty became null and void when the soviet union ceased to exist. how can you have a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist? and we piss off russia every time we don't give them what they want. crybabies. they don't want NATO expanded. they want more money in aid. they don't want this. they want that. when was the last time a country ever survived by appeasing another? russia is going to do what russia wants to do, regardless of the actions of the U.S. i would think that's fairly obvious by now. they've been doing it for the past 80+ years. arms race? what the hell is an arms race? one doesn't get into it just because the U.S. decides to take responsibility for its safety. the minute weapons of war were created, hmmm, i believe that takes us back a ways in history, there was an "arms race." people and nations will always be trying to have bigger, better weapons, bombs, nukes, etc. whether or not the U.S. pursues SDI is irrelevant. just ask indian, pakistan, china. china's a good one. do you really think they would stand by and do nothing if the U.S. backed off the SDI? i think not. they, unlike some people in the U.S. apparently, have their best interests at heart. if you're worried about the money, write your representatives and tell them to quit voting for unconsitutional welfare programs that only result in increased dependence on other people and start putting that money towards the other things you want. that's the problem we have with money.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:04:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: C'mon, if Russia shoots a 100 nukes, where in the world would you be able to hide from THAT fallout? But SDI, even if it is never deployed, will be a program that OUR COUNTRY should invest in, considering all the collateral advances in science, engineering, etc., that would naturally occur. Rather spend the money on welfare?
View Quote
Do you really want to piss off Russia and China? It may just be me, but that isn't the best way to do this. If countries want to get to us they will use more subtler methods than launching a nuke outright.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:07:49 AM EDT
no flame, but why are you so worried about upsetting other countries? do you constantly make every decision in your life based on how or what other people are going to feel about it with blatant disregard to your own needs or wants? should the U.S. do the same? ask england how that worked out for them the last time they faced something similar.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:15:54 AM EDT
Do you really want to piss off Russia and China? It may just be me, but that isn't the best way to do this. If countries want to get to us they will use more subtler methods than launching a nuke outright
View Quote
No flame, but think about this: Why arms honest citizens to piss off the criminals?....Again "Deterrent".
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:16:34 AM EDT
No not at all. But making the single biggest importer of goods to the U.S.(which is China) mad, is not gonna make life over here for us any better off. On another note, why are building this when it doesn't work? shouldn't we have a plan that works before we build it, instead of building it then find out if it works?
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:23:11 AM EDT
Personally, I think that the SDI (or Anti-Ballistic Missile defense) is well worth the expense, even though it may not work as well as we would like to in the beginning, I can see continual refinements that would get the entire program up to snuff. Remember, SDI was created when the only other nuclear capable country with the delievery devices was the former Soviet Union. Currently, there are more countries (such as China), that already have nuclear capability, and either have a delievery program in place, or are working on one. In this case, MAD (mutually assured destruction) most likely would not be a deterent. A smaller country that has a nuclear force would be more likely to launch a smaller attack, hoping that it would be protected by geography and the political climate (ie, retaliating against a country like Paksitan which would effect multiple surrounding countries.) A workable ABM defense would alleviate some of that concern, and would make not only the United States safer, but most likely the world safer. It should also be known that the former Soviet Union had its own ABM defense network surrounding Moscow. I will say that I do not know how effective it would be against the current nuclear force that exists.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 8:56:14 AM EDT
The facts: 61% of all federal money is spent on welfare 23% on the entire military infrastructure Nobody really knows that SDI doesn't work. Tom Brokaw may have said it doesn't, but I don' think any credible source has said it won't. All projects start with trial an error. The fact is this a political topic so every time there is a hiccup it makes the news. Can that be said for ANY other development project out there? I can't think of one. And, finally, I don't recognize any treaty that limits my ability to defend my nation or me. SDI has no offensive capabilities. Too hell with the perceived tip in power balance with Russia. My concern is for any country that would attack, not just Russia. And as far as the trade relations with China, they need our dollars more than we need their goods. Any small country would scramble to take over for the income it would mean zaz
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:04:14 AM EDT
No not at all. But making the single biggest importer of goods to the U.S.(which is China) mad, is not gonna make life over here for us any better off.
View Quote
reconxl, This is a question that puzzle me the most and that I can't understand myself. Why "we" as Americans consumers bought "Made in China" products, spent billions every years while China used that money (U.S. Dollars) to turn around and sign a deal with Russia to buy its warplanes (ground attack aircraft) which someday can be used against our overseas troops? SDI is still in its infant stage, on its last test it was a complete success. A dead on hit {a bullet hitting a bullet). Given time, SDI can and will amount to a great deterrent. Remember, building SDI is for the protection of the U.S.A. and not a mean to piss anyone off.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:43:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 9:39:53 AM EDT by Planerench]
Umm, if memory serves, it took several dozen tries to break the sound barrier after a rework of the X-1 elevator. Also, the actual yield of the first atomic bomb test was unknown until after detonation. Let'er rip!. Goddard spent his life working out the particulars of liquid fueled rockets. Duh! even the Wright brothers tried three times just to get a proper glider! The airforce began on stealth research in the early 70's. The B-1 bomber was built with a goal of being 1/100 the radar signature of the B-52. Now we have nearly radar invisible aircraft. One test out of three successful for SDI? Better scrap it. What if the one intercepted warhead was bound for your city? I have not heard so much dumbass in one place since Clinton's last state of the union speech. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:04:00 AM EDT
Not an astro-physicist...my understanding of "hitting the bullet-with a bullet" technology needs to have the intital trajectory to determine the latter?...so If the final stage is scram jet assisted it can change targets and alter its trajectory so fast it cant be hit?... Congress is trying to give citizenship to up to 8 million currently illegally in the US or on temporary visas...these undocumented...un-background checked...those whose countries of origin keep no records...will enter with full citizenship...most minorities will have first shot at govt. jobs?...OPEC now presided over by the communist dictator of Venezuala whose main ambition in life is to become the next Fidel Castro...China now holds the Panama Canal...and the largest container port in the world along with the longest runways in the world in the Bahamas 80 miles off our coast...Thanks to NAFTA.. up to 30,000 trucks per day cross our borders un-inspected.. do to shortages of personnel...whats in them...back pack nukes...biologicals...chemical weapons...plastic explosives..now we will have Mexican truck drivers with full access to all parts of the US...non US citizens without background checks ...cruising america going wherever they like..This Star Wars project was a giant pork project under Pres Reagan...now under GW...it wont work..but it will put billions of tax payers dollar into the hands of what General Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago ..the Military Industrial Complex...(not to mention China will some how aquire this secret technology as well since the primary movers to this day have not been arrested or prosectuted)...We need more missiles...that is what strikes fear into the hearts of our enemies...its what they are building...they increase their offensive technology and we put our money into defense...that we have no idea how long it will REALLY take to get the bugs out...or how much it will cost..or if they attack in a year or even 5 IT WONT BE READY ON TIME.....no we must stick with what we know..and what we can build fast and what will work...N Korea...Russia ...China..are building more missiles and are targeting us...we need to do the same...and do it quickly...imo
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:22:22 AM EDT
Everyone has to remember that all the same experts that say the limited defense system proposed cannot ever work are the same that said that we would be crushed by the Iraqi army in the desert, that all our untested but ineffective modern weapon were not as good as the battle tested gear of the FSU. Also, don't a lot of these same scientist say that the presence of guns causes crime? Maybe their agenda is a political one?
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 12:59:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: Everyone has to remember that all the same experts that say the limited defense system proposed cannot ever work are the same that said that we would be crushed by the Iraqi army in the desert, that all our untested but ineffective modern weapon were not as good as the battle tested gear of the FSU. Also, don't a lot of these same scientist say that the presence of guns causes crime? Maybe their agenda is a political one?
View Quote
I agree, but I do beleive that updating the conventional military arsenal should have priority. We should keep plugging away at research for it though.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 1:45:10 PM EDT
True our conventional forces need a lot of rebuilding these days. For the past 8 or so years we have used up all the Reagan buld up and now when we go to the bank, we find that we don't have a lot of ordnance we need to train and fight with anymore.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:06:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:42:20 PM EDT
Finally some backup, I was begging to think I was yelling into the wind.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:35:19 PM EDT
RECONXL, AIRMAN you are out of uniform and AWOL! For a person who has or plans to join the armed forces you had better zip the lip. Your SENIORS have determined that SDS is NEEDED. If you want a positive experience in the armed forces you forgo your right to rant about things you have no knowledge. The people that KNOW more than they TELL have made a COMMAND DECISION and you AIRDOG had better get back in formation.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:03:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:42:53 PM EDT
If your enemy is afraid, it is a good thing. We are at war with the World. Our "Allies" and trading partners are not to be trusted. We must shoulder the resposibilty for our own defense. We live in a bad neighborhood. The Russians have bunkers for millions of people and have an SDI inplace to protect Moscow. Stop being pawns for our enemies, support your Country.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 2:43:59 AM EDT
You guys are getting the limited defense planned mixed up with the full blown SDI of the late 80's. The system is only intended to stop a few missiles. Not what you would see in the in full out Russian or even Chinese attack. It designed around a rogue state launch of one maybe two missiles, what we know the North Korean will be able to place on west coast of the US in the very near future. How can it be destabilizing against people with any real fire power, they know the can overwhelm the defense, and if it cannot work most of them would not care and let us waste the money? Most penaids can be circumvented with a lot of the technology they are working on, so that is not really an issue. MAD only works with rational players, Kim IL Jung, Sadam and Qudafi don't fit into that model they are willing to accept their people being destroyed. Since we already have an overmatch capability against them, and they are willing to attack us as it is. The most likely method for delivery is not an ICBM, but that doesn't mean we should not defend against them when we know we can stop them.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 4:04:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: MAD only works with rational players, Kim IL Jung, Sadam...
View Quote
I think you're confusing Kim Jong Il with his late father, Kim Il Sung - you kinda combined their names. I have nothing really to contribute - just wanted to nitpick. I personally think it's all a big waste of money - but deterrence is one of those things that can never be measured. By working correctly, it only causes its opponents to continue to not see the need for it. Kinda odd like that. Kinda like how nobody appreciates the work of the building custodian until he decides to quit. Adam
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 4:53:34 AM EDT
Think: Maginot Line We're spending many BILLIONS of dollars building a defense that can be easily bypassed. And, we're destabilizing the equation, because it makes other countries believe that we'll attack them without worry from their nukes, and that makes them very nervous. The problem isn't the technology, which will eventually improve enough to solve the current problems (though the "offense" is continuing to develop as well). The problem is that the whole idea is dumb.
View Quote
A waste of time and a dumb idea?...I think not when there are still thousand of nuke missiles pointing this way. And as for the nuke in a suitcase, then we have low tech defense for that.....Sniffing dog!
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 6:49:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: A waste of time and a dumb idea?...I think not when there are still thousand of nuke missiles pointing this way. And as for the nuke in a suitcase, then we have low tech defense for that.....Sniffing dog!
View Quote
AR: Did you read any of the posts preceding yours or did you just not think before you wrote? The fact that there are thousands of missiles is only one of the reasons SDI as now planned won't work. SDI might work if instead of using single interceptor against each warhead they employed an area weapon such as a nuke to kill everything in a large area of space or sky. Use of nukes have their own drawbacks but given the fact that it is not possible to differentiate b/t a decoy and a warhead it may be the best way. As for bomb sniffing dogs, geat real. Thousands of mexicans seem able to avoid customs and immigration, what you makes you think our enemies can't do the same? What makes you think that Chicom container ship didn't drop a nuke into the mud of the last port it visited?
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 7:34:27 AM EDT
I love these terms, like "rogue states" being thrown around lately. Just more govt. propaganda designed to scare scare the shit out of us, and try to make us swallow a multi- billion dollar folly. They tried the same sort of tactics during the 1950's to gain support for an unnecessary arms build up. Remember, the bigger the lie, the more willing people will be to believe it. I'm not buying it.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 8:01:24 AM EDT
originally posted by MOD: Did you read any of the posts preceding yours or did you just not think before you wrote? The fact that there are thousands of missiles is only one of the reasons SDI as now planned won't work.
View Quote
MOD Speak for yourself! I didn't say that SDI is the only defense capable of defeating all the nuke attack on the U.S. It's only a "part" of a defense. It's only a matter of time that those rogue states can and will deploy they own ballistic missiles. North Korea have already demonstrated that they can. And if you said that SDI will not work, how come both Russia and Chicom are so nervous about it? and strongly oppose to it. May be it will work and may be not, but the fact is that those guys blink is enough for us to bring it into the bargain table. Stop pointing those missiles at us or we start to build it. If we can do that, then SDI works! It's a poker game my friend. OK, I was kidding about the sniffing dog...Unlike you, if anyone can read that, they know that I am joking. Now, seriously, if anyone can detonate a bomb in the middle of a U.S city can very well detonate a nuke bomb anywhere in this country. That threat is very real and a dilemma to our security boys in Washington. How to stop it, I don't know. May be we have something in place already and may be not. Or may be we can't. That is a terrorist threat which got nothing to do with SDI.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 12:29:32 PM EDT
Hello all, Just a short note, We already have a missile defense system and it is called HAARP....one problem, it only works on north and south vectors......not east or west. Short wave enthusiasts can already hear the HAARP.....look it up.....
Top Top