Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield?

[Si modo]

Why would Iran commit national suicide by launching a nuclear weapon at us in first place?

Exactly.

The Republicans love to waste our money on ridiculous military projects.

It's what they do.

Actually, those opposed to this move by the administration are interested in finding alternatives to such a barbaric deterrent as MAD.

 

[Chris]

Why would Iran commit national suicide by launching a nuclear weapon at us in first place?

Exactly.

The Republicans love to waste our money on ridiculous military projects.

It's what they do.

Actually, those opposed to this move by the administration are interested in finding alternatives to such a barbaric deterrent as MAD.

Nice try, pilgrim.

No need to waste the taxpayers money on this silliness.

 

[Si modo]

Exactly.

The Republicans love to waste our money on ridiculous military projects.

It's what they do.

Actually, those opposed to this move by the administration are interested in finding alternatives to such a barbaric deterrent as MAD.

Nice try, pilgrim.

No need to waste the taxpayers money on this silliness.

Thanks. I like to keep facts on the table. There are alternatives to the barbaric concept of MAD and those who oppose this move recognize that.

 

[rdean]

One test failure out of several tests, most of which succeeded, is just one datapoint in several. A bit of knowledge about scientific methods might be a good idea for you.

Perhaps those 'anti-science' Republicans you mentioned realized that one test failure out of several does not equate to "it doesn't work". Your input is inane.

Actually, if one nuclear weapon get's through, then "yes" indeed, it didn't work.

Honestly, I don't understand why even the most simple things are such a challenge for Republicans?

Look, if the "target" has a "known" direction, velocity, location and is equipped with a homing device, AND IT IS STILL MISSED, then it is most definitely a failure. Can it be said in a more "simple" manner?

If a test fails one time (your link highlights one test failure, yet there are several tests) because of a failure in one area of the system, yet at least 10 other tests succeed, and that leads you to conclude that the entire system is a failure; it looks like we should all be thankful that Dems such as yourself have little to do with science.

Wow, I think you have finally helped me to understand Republicans. For them, "failure" is a "success".

So, Does This Mean Missile Defense Works? - TIME

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

The thing that surprises me is that Republicans have so little "faith" in science, but swear by a "defense" system that doesn't work. Is there more than a "hint" of irony?

 

[Si modo]

Actually, if one nuclear weapon get's through, then "yes" indeed, it didn't work.

Honestly, I don't understand why even the most simple things are such a challenge for Republicans?

Look, if the "target" has a "known" direction, velocity, location and is equipped with a homing device, AND IT IS STILL MISSED, then it is most definitely a failure. Can it be said in a more "simple" manner?

If a test fails one time (your link highlights one test failure, yet there are several tests) because of a failure in one area of the system, yet at least 10 other tests succeed, and that leads you to conclude that the entire system is a failure; it looks like we should all be thankful that Dems such as yourself have little to do with science.

Wow, I think you have finally helped me to understand Republicans. For them, "failure" is a "success".

So, Does This Mean Missile Defense Works? - TIME

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

The thing that surprises me is that Republicans have so little "faith" in science, but swear by a "defense" system that doesn't work. Is there more than a "hint" of irony?

Anyone who knows a thing about science does not describe it as a faith. And anyone who analyzes test results does not do so through media outlets rather they examine the actual results: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

....
Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Record
(as of July 31, 2009)
The Missile Defense Agency conducts regular flight tests to verify performance and
confirm the technological progress of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Testing to date has given us confidence in the basic design, effectiveness, and
operational capability for short, medium and long-range ballistic missile defense.
Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 40 of 51 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 16 of 19 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 19 of 23 intercept attempts (including Operation
Burnt Frost in Feb. 2008), 4 failures since tests began in 2002 (8 of 10 in tests
involving the operationally configured interceptor)
• Includes two Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill
intercepts using a proximity-fuzed explosive to destroy target
• Causes of Failures:
-FM-5 – Interceptor divert control malfunctioned
-FTM-11 – Fire-control malfunctioned because of operator error
-Pacific Blitz exercise – One target was intercepted, another was missed; all
interceptors were version Block I missiles that had exceeded their service life
-JFTM-2 –Interceptor flew normally until final seconds; cause not yet
determined
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 8 of 13 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
since tests began in 1999 (3 of 3 tests involving the operationally configured
interceptor)• Causes of Failures:
-IFT-4 –Kill vehicle’s infrared sensor cooling malfunctioned--the only
malfunction thus far in final “endgame” period before intercept
-IFT-5 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-10 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-13c –Interceptor failed to launch due to problematic software
configuration
-IFT-14 –Interceptor failed to launch after a silo support arm did not retract,
triggering an automatic abort
• FTG-03 was a “no test” because the target malfunctioned after launch;
interceptor was not launched)
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense: 6 of 6 intercept attempts, 2 “no-tests”
(all tests involve the operationally configured interceptor)
• Current test program began in 2006
• No-tests: FTT-04 and FTT-10 had targets malfunction after launch

[Emphasis added]

Deja vu all over again.

 

[Chris]

Actually, those opposed to this move by the administration are interested in finding alternatives to such a barbaric deterrent as MAD.

Nice try, pilgrim.

No need to waste the taxpayers money on this silliness.

Thanks. I like to keep facts on the table. There are alternatives to the barbaric concept of MAD and those who oppose this move recognize that.

Don't worry, it won't be Iran that destroys us.

It will be the Senate Republicans.

 

[DiveCon]

Nice try, pilgrim.

No need to waste the taxpayers money on this silliness.

Thanks. I like to keep facts on the table. There are alternatives to the barbaric concept of MAD and those who oppose this move recognize that.

Don't worry, it won't be Iran that destroys us.

It will be the Senate Republicans.

ah yes, those impudent Senate republicans that have a grand total of 40 members that cant stop a single thing the dems decide they want

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Actually, those opposed to this move by the administration are interested in finding alternatives to such a barbaric deterrent as MAD.

Nice try, pilgrim.

No need to waste the taxpayers money on this silliness.

Thanks. I like to keep facts on the table. There are alternatives to the barbaric concept of MAD and those who oppose this move recognize that.

Actually a missile defense system will likely lead to a NEW ARMS RACE!!!! The fact of MAD is what keeps people from being stupid enough to launch them. Tell me where do terrorists attack? The weakest point of defense so if we build a defense shield they will simply deliver the weapon by other means.

 

[Intense]

Why would Iran commit national suicide by launching a nuclear weapon at us in first place?

Prophesy. You can watch them talk about on the NYC Cable TV Stations all the time.

 

[DiveCon]

Why would Iran commit national suicide by launching a nuclear weapon at us in first place?

why would people strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up?

 

[rdean]

If a test fails one time (your link highlights one test failure, yet there are several tests) because of a failure in one area of the system, yet at least 10 other tests succeed, and that leads you to conclude that the entire system is a failure; it looks like we should all be thankful that Dems such as yourself have little to do with science.

Wow, I think you have finally helped me to understand Republicans. For them, "failure" is a "success".

So, Does This Mean Missile Defense Works? - TIME

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

The thing that surprises me is that Republicans have so little "faith" in science, but swear by a "defense" system that doesn't work. Is there more than a "hint" of irony?

Anyone who knows a thing about science does not describe it as a faith. And anyone who analyzes test results does not do so through media outlets rather they examine the actual results: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

....
Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Record
(as of July 31, 2009)
The Missile Defense Agency conducts regular flight tests to verify performance and
confirm the technological progress of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Testing to date has given us confidence in the basic design, effectiveness, and
operational capability for short, medium and long-range ballistic missile defense.
Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 40 of 51 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 16 of 19 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 19 of 23 intercept attempts (including Operation
Burnt Frost in Feb. 2008), 4 failures since tests began in 2002 (8 of 10 in tests
involving the operationally configured interceptor)
• Includes two Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill
intercepts using a proximity-fuzed explosive to destroy target
• Causes of Failures:
-FM-5 – Interceptor divert control malfunctioned
-FTM-11 – Fire-control malfunctioned because of operator error
-Pacific Blitz exercise – One target was intercepted, another was missed; all
interceptors were version Block I missiles that had exceeded their service life
-JFTM-2 –Interceptor flew normally until final seconds; cause not yet
determined
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 8 of 13 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
since tests began in 1999 (3 of 3 tests involving the operationally configured
interceptor)• Causes of Failures:
-IFT-4 –Kill vehicle’s infrared sensor cooling malfunctioned--the only
malfunction thus far in final “endgame” period before intercept
-IFT-5 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-10 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-13c –Interceptor failed to launch due to problematic software
configuration
-IFT-14 –Interceptor failed to launch after a silo support arm did not retract,
triggering an automatic abort
• FTG-03 was a “no test” because the target malfunctioned after launch;
interceptor was not launched)
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense: 6 of 6 intercept attempts, 2 “no-tests”
(all tests involve the operationally configured interceptor)
• Current test program began in 2006
• No-tests: FTT-04 and FTT-10 had targets malfunction after launch

[Emphasis added]

Deja vu all over again.

What is it that is so difficult to understand?

First, the people issuing the "report card" are generals and manufacturers of that system, so naturally they are going to crow about all the "success".

Second, the targets were of a a known trajectory, velocity and they even had a 'TRANSPONDER".

Third, if the system really worked, they would be showing real data with real tests. You don't have to have foreign countries send real missiles, you simply have to have the Navy or Army send missiles WITHOUT TRANSPONDERS, at unexpected times, within a controlled window. Instead, it's the Military and the Contractors sending out the press releases. Duh!

Deja vu. You're right. It gets old having to explain the most simple things to Republicans. It's because they won't question the military, and they don't know how things work.

 

[Si modo]

Wow, I think you have finally helped me to understand Republicans. For them, "failure" is a "success".

So, Does This Mean Missile Defense Works? - TIME

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

The thing that surprises me is that Republicans have so little "faith" in science, but swear by a "defense" system that doesn't work. Is there more than a "hint" of irony?

Anyone who knows a thing about science does not describe it as a faith. And anyone who analyzes test results does not do so through media outlets rather they examine the actual results: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

....
Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Record
(as of July 31, 2009)
The Missile Defense Agency conducts regular flight tests to verify performance and
confirm the technological progress of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Testing to date has given us confidence in the basic design, effectiveness, and
operational capability for short, medium and long-range ballistic missile defense.
Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 40 of 51 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 16 of 19 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 19 of 23 intercept attempts (including Operation
Burnt Frost in Feb. 2008), 4 failures since tests began in 2002 (8 of 10 in tests
involving the operationally configured interceptor)
• Includes two Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill
intercepts using a proximity-fuzed explosive to destroy target
• Causes of Failures:
-FM-5 – Interceptor divert control malfunctioned
-FTM-11 – Fire-control malfunctioned because of operator error
-Pacific Blitz exercise – One target was intercepted, another was missed; all
interceptors were version Block I missiles that had exceeded their service life
-JFTM-2 –Interceptor flew normally until final seconds; cause not yet
determined
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 8 of 13 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
since tests began in 1999 (3 of 3 tests involving the operationally configured
interceptor)• Causes of Failures:
-IFT-4 –Kill vehicle’s infrared sensor cooling malfunctioned--the only
malfunction thus far in final “endgame” period before intercept
-IFT-5 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-10 –Kill vehicle and booster did not separate
-IFT-13c –Interceptor failed to launch due to problematic software
configuration
-IFT-14 –Interceptor failed to launch after a silo support arm did not retract,
triggering an automatic abort
• FTG-03 was a “no test” because the target malfunctioned after launch;
interceptor was not launched)
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense: 6 of 6 intercept attempts, 2 “no-tests”
(all tests involve the operationally configured interceptor)
• Current test program began in 2006
• No-tests: FTT-04 and FTT-10 had targets malfunction after launch

[Emphasis added]

Deja vu all over again.

....

Third, if the system really worked, they would be showing real data with real tests. ....

That IS the data - the only data. The MDA is the only one who performs the tests.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all. Please explain how it threatened the Russians.

Call it self evident or axiomatic, Emma; the neoconservative mind is willfully obtuse.

So, Wry Catcher, let us in on this secret and educate those less fortunate than you - how is the subject system provocative/threatening the Russians? Surely one of you are bright enough to articulate that in a clear and concise manner.

Let's suppose you're not being difficult and actually don't understand.
Let's also suppose the following analogy:
You're at home after a very difficult commute. On your way home you and another driver had a conflict and exchanged heated words and gestures.
After arriving home, you look out and parked across the street is the guy you argued with. He's standing outside of his car, and in full view, has a large long gun, at the ready.
Let's assume your rational and call the police. Since you live in a red state (hey, it's my story so I make the assumptions) the cop laughs and tells you he's got every right to carry. He then quotes from the Second Amendments, laughs at you and suggests maybe you ought to move to San Francisco.
As the cop leaves, your young son rides by the front of your home on his tricycle. Your adversary watches you watch your son and smiles.
Do you now understand the meaning of "provocation"? Wouldn't you be inclined to arm yourself, lock, load, and keep your weapon at the ready?

 

[Liability]

President Obama: "Defense? Defense? We dontz needz no steenkin 'defense'!"

 

[Zona]

Pentagon Confirms Major Adjustments to European Missile Shield - Political News - FOXNews.com

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl released a statement Thursday morning accusing the administration of caving to Russia.

"The decision announced today by the administration is dangerous and short-sighted," the Arizona Republican said. "Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia. This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe."

Obama's top military adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the administration was "very close" to the end of a seven-month review of a missile defense shield proposal, an idea that was promoted by the George W. Bush administration. Mullen would not divulge its results.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the U.S. decision "a positive step."

Fox news? OMG.

 

[DiveCon]

Pentagon Confirms Major Adjustments to European Missile Shield - Political News - FOXNews.com

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl released a statement Thursday morning accusing the administration of caving to Russia.

"The decision announced today by the administration is dangerous and short-sighted," the Arizona Republican said. "Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia. This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe."

Obama's top military adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the administration was "very close" to the end of a seven-month review of a missile defense shield proposal, an idea that was promoted by the George W. Bush administration. Mullen would not divulge its results.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the U.S. decision "a positive step."

Fox news? OMG.

you seriously need to seek out help for your OCD over FNC

 

[Si modo]

Call it self evident or axiomatic, Emma; the neoconservative mind is willfully obtuse.

So, Wry Catcher, let us in on this secret and educate those less fortunate than you - how is the subject system provocative/threatening the Russians? Surely one of you are bright enough to articulate that in a clear and concise manner.

Let's suppose you're not being difficult and actually don't understand.
Let's also suppose the following analogy:
You're at home after a very difficult commute. On your way home you and another driver had a conflict and exchanged heated words and gestures.
After arriving home, you look out and parked across the street is the guy you argued with. He's standing outside of his car, and in full view, has a large long gun, at the ready.
Let's assume your rational and call the police. Since you live in a red state (hey, it's my story so I make the assumptions) the cop laughs and tells you he's got every right to carry. He then quotes from the Second Amendments, laughs at you and suggests maybe you ought to move to San Francisco.
As the cop leaves, your young son rides by the front of your home on his tricycle. Your adversary watches you watch your son and smiles.
Do you now understand the meaning of "provocation"? Wouldn't you be inclined to arm yourself, lock, load, and keep your weapon at the ready?

That's not quite clear and concise: it's an inane and irrelvant analogy; but here is the simple question again: How is this system provocative/threatening to the Russians? Do try to focus.

 

[Stormbringer]

O.K. then I KNOW you will post of PROOF that we have SUCCESFULLY used interceptor missiles. And I DON'T mean pre planed events where they KNEW where it would be coming from. Missile defense systems have FAILED MISERABLY. Please tell me WHY a rogue nation would even use a missile delivery system.

first some of the SM-3 missile intercepts were set up so that the launching craft did not know the time or location of the ICBM or intermediate range missiles. the GBM too has had equivalent exercises given that the flight path of russian or iranian ICBMS would be known. unless you think russia is teleporting around the planet. the record of test launches for both systems is easily obtainable. you have not bothered to look them up yourself but you are making pronouncements about them. and finally; nerdlette, look at my post count. i cannot post URLs yet. look it up yourself.

 

[Si modo]

O.K. then I KNOW you will post of PROOF that we have SUCCESFULLY used interceptor missiles. And I DON'T mean pre planed events where they KNEW where it would be coming from. Missile defense systems have FAILED MISERABLY. Please tell me WHY a rogue nation would even use a missile delivery system.

first some of the SM-3 missile intercepts were set up so that the launching craft did not know the time or location of the ICBM or intermediate range missiles. the GBM too has had equivalent exercises given that the flight path of russian or iranian ICBMS would be known. unless you think russia is teleporting around the planet. the record of test launches for both systems is easily obtainable. you have not bothered to look them up yourself but you are making pronouncements about them. and finally; nerdlette, look at my post count. i cannot post URLs yet. look it up yourself.

The record has been posted at least three times in both threads about this. He doesn't need to look up a thing. He and others have been spoonfed the information. Draw your own conclusions about that and any willingness of others to be informed.

 

[JW Frogen]

I think the USA still has something over 10,000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia.

My point?

I think that's enough deterent that we don't have to worry too much about russia lunching missles at anybody.

We do have to worry, or rather Poland, Hungry and Czechoslovakia has to worry about whether the US would launch anything in their defense.

The US did not rush to Georgia's defense now did she? Despite all those bad, bad, US missels pointed at the big, bad, Russian Bear, because Georgia did not sign the NATO line in time.

Russia knows this; they will push the boundaries of their former glory as far as they can, as far as we let them.

So giving up SDI without getting anything in return is sort of like a man saying to the woman who has just jilted him, "I love you so much I will do anything for you."

You are asking for a pussy whoopen.