Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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?
[Emphasis mine] That's rich. Again my question - third time - which you continue to dodge: How is this system provocative/threatening to the Russians?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.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?
Focus...ah...okay. Debate requires effort, name calling (yes, I'm aware "inane" is one of you most favorite words, but in the final analysis it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack) is not responsive, it's evasive and IMO rather childish.
To even further screw this up, apparently we are still shipping the Patriots to Poland (Poland Still Gets Patriots)Its not provoking the russians as they aren't offensive missles, but that doesn't help certain people's argument so we must either ignore or deny that fact when debating.
The russians just use the missles as an excuse to continue being douchebags towards us policy wise.
It was pretty stupid to just remove the missles without getting something out of the russians in return, it was nice but it won't change the Russian Govt's attitude towards us AT ALL.
[Emphasis added]....
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
First of all, every target had a "transponder", it's direction, velocity and location were "KNOWN".
• 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
Who said success? Nevermind, you did. FYI, strawmen are logical fallacies. Pay attention, these are the data for what you claim is a failure which you base on one test result. That sort of thinking, combined with your logical fallacies, makes you, sir, an enemy of science.Look at that, even the targets malfunctioned. Obviously that means another "no hit".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[Emphasis added]....
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
First of all, every target had a "transponder", it's direction, velocity and location were "KNOWN".
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 vehicles 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
Deja vu all over again.
And this is the list that Republicans point to as a "success". I just don't get it. They feel comfortable calling up down and calling in out and calling white black (well, maybe not white black).
.Who said success? Nevermind, you did. FYI, strawmen are logical fallacies. Pay attention, these are the data for what you claim is a failure which you base on one test result. That sort of thinking, combined with your logical fallacies, makes you, sir, an enemy of science.Look at that, even the targets malfunctioned. Obviously that means another "no hit".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[Emphasis added]
Deja vu all over again.
And this is the list that Republicans point to as a "success". I just don't get it. They feel comfortable calling up down and calling in out and calling white black (well, maybe not white black).
Its not provoking the russians as they aren't offensive missles, but that doesn't help certain people's argument so we must either ignore or deny that fact when debating.
The russians just use the missles as an excuse to continue being douchebags towards us policy wise.
It was pretty stupid to just remove the missles without getting something out of the russians in return, it was nice but it won't change the Russian Govt's attitude towards us AT ALL.
MOSCOW Russia said Saturday it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Washington has dumped a planned missile shield in Eastern Europe. It also harshly criticized Iran's president for new comments denying the Holocaust.
Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat. And while the Kremlin has previously criticized Tehran for questioning the reality of the Holocaust, Russian leaders have refused to back Western push for tougher sanctions against Iran.
It still remains unclear whether Moscow will make any significant concessions on Iran and other issues in response to President Barack Obama's move to scrap the Bush-era plan for U.S. missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told Ekho Moskvy radio Saturday that Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.
He described Obama's move as "victory of reason over ambitions."
Good for the folks of Kaliningrad Oblast, but better for the Russians as the anti-Moscow strife and security issues already existing in the Oblast made their putting missiles there a risky undertaking in the first place.Its not provoking the russians as they aren't offensive missles, but that doesn't help certain people's argument so we must either ignore or deny that fact when debating.
The russians just use the missles as an excuse to continue being douchebags towards us policy wise.
It was pretty stupid to just remove the missles without getting something out of the russians in return, it was nice but it won't change the Russian Govt's attitude towards us AT ALL.
Russia has responded ....
MOSCOW Russia said Saturday it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Washington has dumped a planned missile shield in Eastern Europe. It also harshly criticized Iran's president for new comments denying the Holocaust.
Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat. And while the Kremlin has previously criticized Tehran for questioning the reality of the Holocaust, Russian leaders have refused to back Western push for tougher sanctions against Iran.
It still remains unclear whether Moscow will make any significant concessions on Iran and other issues in response to President Barack Obama's move to scrap the Bush-era plan for U.S. missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told Ekho Moskvy radio Saturday that Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.
He described Obama's move as "victory of reason over ambitions."
Russia says it won't deploy missiles near Poland - Yahoo! News
maybe because those are but ONE TIER of a MULTI-TIERED system?You guys DO realize that the US Navy now has a system that is operational from a warship AEGIS class, which instead of being rooted down on the ground in one country, can be DEPLOYED (which means moved for you idiots out there), from one place to another? Oh yeah.......they've finally got most of the bugs worked out as they've put 2 successful tests on the news.
Iran announces that they've got ballistic missiles? Simple.......put one AEGIS in the Red Sea, one in the Persian Gulf and one in the Med.
Simple. Why spend all the money to plant things that we'd have to leave behind?
maybe because those are but ONE TIER of a MULTI-TIERED system?You guys DO realize that the US Navy now has a system that is operational from a warship AEGIS class, which instead of being rooted down on the ground in one country, can be DEPLOYED (which means moved for you idiots out there), from one place to another? Oh yeah.......they've finally got most of the bugs worked out as they've put 2 successful tests on the news.
Iran announces that they've got ballistic missiles? Simple.......put one AEGIS in the Red Sea, one in the Persian Gulf and one in the Med.
Simple. Why spend all the money to plant things that we'd have to leave behind?
the number of ships in the Navy keeps droppingmaybe because those are but ONE TIER of a MULTI-TIERED system?You guys DO realize that the US Navy now has a system that is operational from a warship AEGIS class, which instead of being rooted down on the ground in one country, can be DEPLOYED (which means moved for you idiots out there), from one place to another? Oh yeah.......they've finally got most of the bugs worked out as they've put 2 successful tests on the news.
Iran announces that they've got ballistic missiles? Simple.......put one AEGIS in the Red Sea, one in the Persian Gulf and one in the Med.
Simple. Why spend all the money to plant things that we'd have to leave behind?
It's a hell of a lot more effective on the ship than on land, you don't have to worry about getting permission from countries, AND, when you're told to leave, you don't leave a whole bunch of other shit behind.
Besides, the Navy has more ships that can do serious damage (and shoot down missiles) than just the AEGIS.
Might wanna look ABOVE the water sometime Dive Can't Sushi Boy.
you also need numbers if you plan to deploy 3 ships in one area and have a chance at rotation and to deal with other hot spots at the same timeThat is because the capabilities of the weapons systems keeps going up, and we started off with (while I was in), and have now fully implemented "smart ships".
Sometimes you've got to get rid of the old to make room for newer and better.
That is because the capabilities of the weapons systems keeps going up, and we started off with (while I was in), and have now fully implemented "smart ships".
Sometimes you've got to get rid of the old to make room for newer and better.
