U.S. missile defense test successful

[M14 Shooter]

So, you don't mind spending billions of dollars on a system which will be useless in a couple years?

You keep saying that, and you havent done a thing to support it.

You're welcome to have that view, I do not. You're calling Threat A "Today's ICBMs" and Threat B "Tomorrow's ICBMs" then no defensive program can ever be considered useless.

You arent paying attnetion.
Threat A is ICBMs from 'rogue states'
Threat B is a nuclear weapon smuggled into the country.

Let me see... three failed systems and a shutdown system... good history lesson there. Glad we shut Safeguard down though... not a single missile got through even without it! (30 years of saving $$$)

Fact remains: As you admit, no RV uses any of the defenses you described, even though ABM technology has been around for 50 years.

Yep. As I said, they didn't get progressively easier... they vacillated between insanely easy to kinda easy and back again as they reached the limits of the system.

You are. of course, the only person in the world that describes the 'bullet hitting a bullet' nature of the tests as 'insanely easy'. Perhaps that should tell you something -- but, of course, it won't.

Why are you changing the subject? Did the c-band transponder (beacon) feed information to the targeting system or not? Simple question. A yes or no will suffice.

Don't avoid my question -- answer it.
YOU brought the transponder issue up, and so if yu really think its an issue, then you should be able to describe HOW and WHY it is an issue. Try doing that.

Or, you can admit that its NOT an issue and that you, again, were wrong.

Your call.

So, in the tiny realm of infrared missiles... there are 12... that list, as is quite clear, shows all the other attempts at hitting missiles with missiles.

The only tests relevant to the NMD are the NMD IFT-X tests that I noted.
So, I'm still waiting for you to illustrate the "dozens" of tests that failed to kill the target.

Of course I'm dead set against it... it's a waste of money.

Not that you have in any way been able to show.

Just because you're either A) ignorant of the military history of defensive systems...

Says he, who, until today, did not know that BMD technology is 50+ years old...

 

[jasendorf]

You arent paying attnetion.
Threat A is ICBMs from 'rogue states'
Threat B is a nuclear weapon smuggled into the country.

Ohhhh. So, you're debating the Doniston... the one who made that assertion. Now I understand why YOU'RE confused. I've never made any comment on smuggled nuclear weapons. I've simply said, repeatedly (although you seem incapable of even discerning between my argument and Doniston's), is that this system is useless if even the simplest of evasive technologies are thrown at it.

Fact remains: As you admit, no RV uses any of the defenses you described, even though ABM technology has been around for 50 years.

You mean the unimplemented ABM technologies of unproven worth? Yes. You're right. No missiles (to my knowledge) have been developed to attempt to thwart the unused, unimplemented, theoretical technologies you've described.

You are. of course, the only person in the world that describes the 'bullet hitting a bullet' nature of the tests as 'insanely easy'. Perhaps that should tell you something -- but, of course, it won't.

Agreed, in the realm of everything from coloring within the lines to putting a man on Mars... this ranks pretty friggin' high on the "wow" factor for technology. But in terms of a bullet hitting a bullet... the conditions were perfect (in fact, overly perfect in some cases... like where the target helped guide the interceptor)... making these tests little more than "gimmes."

Don't avoid my question -- answer it.
YOU brought the transponder issue up, and so if yu really think its an issue, then you should be able to describe HOW and WHY it is an issue. Try doing that.

Or, you can admit that its NOT an issue and that you, again, were wrong.

Your call.

I've answered your question about half a dozen times already... the target provided targeting information to the targeting system. Does the x-radar rely on the target to tell it where it is? No. Hence, the difference is simple and lain bare for all to see. And, your inability to answer a simple yes or no answer only proves that you're attempting to hide behind definitions of what the word "is" is.

The only tests relevant to the NMD are the NMD IFT-X tests that I noted.

So, in other words, if the failure rate gets too high... simply change the series of the test names! Brilliant! I guess that's one way to get your success rate, simply start counting anew!


Since you're the expert on this subject (leading us all to believe that your interest in this project is far more than that of an "average citizen"), would you mind walking down the hall and asking the engineers if this technology can be thwarted with flares? If so, is it possible to put flares on ICBMs?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've answered your question about half a dozen times already... the target provided targeting information to the targeting system. Does the x-radar rely on the target to tell it where it is? No.

Wow. You REALLY dont understand the issue. If you had any clue at all regarding this issue you'd need not ask that question.

I've grown tired of trying to save you from your ignorance, willful or otherwise. You obviously dont care how wrong you are, you'll simply ignore any fact that you don't like and/or understand so that you can hold on to your opposition to the NMD.

 

[jasendorf]

Wow. You REALLY dont understand the issue. If you had any clue at all regarding this issue you'd need not ask that question.

I've grown tired of trying to save you from your ignorance, willful or otherwise. You obviously dont care how wrong you are, you'll simply ignore any fact that you don't like and/or understand so that you can hold on to your opposition to the NMD.

Hit too close to home with the "go down the hall and ask the engineers" question didn't I...

Keep on celebrating those successes though... enough people are likely to be fooled by them to believe we should keep throwing money at it hence saving your job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hit too close to home with the "go down the hall and ask the engineers" question didn't I...

No. You have simply, and banally, illustrated that you dont have the knowledge necessary to have this conversation, and that you lack the intellectual honesty to take the information you've been given and modify your preconceptions accordingly.

Most people who refuse to modify their baseless preconceptiions regardless of the information they have been given are referred to as bigots, but -I- shant refer to you as such.

 

[jasendorf]

No. You have simply, and banally, illustrated that you dont have the knowledge necessary to have this conversation, and that you lack the intellectual honesty to take the information you've been given and modify your preconceptions accordingly.

Just because I won't buy your incessant spinning doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding the issues at hand. If you're unwilling to be an honest debater then you're right, we can't have an honest discussion.

Most people who refuse to modify their baseless preconceptiions regardless of the information they have been given are referred to as bigots, but -I- shant refer to you as such.

Your "information" is nothing more than mirrors and parlor tricks used in an attempt to make this technological achievement look to be more than it is:

• If the percentages of successful tests are low... simply start counting anew.
• If you can't argue my points... argue against doniston's points instead.
• If you can't answer a simple question of whether a target fed targeting information to the targeting system without exposing your lie... just don't answer.
• If noting that these systems could be thwarted with evasive flares which could be installed on ICBMs... debate doniston again; or, say I lack knowledge and pretend I never asked.

These are just a few of the tactics you've used to pretend this system is a useful deterrent against a nuclear ICBM threat which barely exists (once again... please consult history on the number of ICBMs launched against North America for more information).

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you're ablte to have this conversation, get back to me.

 

[jasendorf]

When you're ablte to have this conversation, get back to me.

I've been having a conversation... you've been spinning, lying and ignoring important points. Stop back when you're willing to have an honest discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've been having a conversation... you've been spinning, lying and ignoring important points.

Show, in specific terms, where I have done any of these things.
Support your claims.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Show, in specific terms, where I have done any of these things.
Support your claims.

So, do you have specific instances, or not?

If you think you can show where anything I said was a lie, or misrepresents the truth, or anything similar, I'd LOVE to see it.

Otherwise, you're simply trying to get away from a position you know you cannot defend.

 

[doniston]

That's what the Threat A / Defense B argumeht comes down to - different threats require different countermeasures. That a particular countermeasure doesnt protect us against a threat its not designed to counter doesnt invalidate that countermeasure.

Machineguns wont stop tanks -- according to you, we should not build machineguns.


ABMs have been around since the late 50s.


Hardly. To support your claim that the tests were 'progressively easier' you need to describe each test sand show how each test was made simpler than the previous test.


Yes -- the truth how the IKV did not home in on a beacon. Given the truth, I'd be interested to see how you still think "the beacon" myth means anything.


Because these are the flight tests that attempted to hit an incoming warhead.
Please show the "dozens" of failures in that regard.

Why are you so opposed to the US having the ability to shoot down incoming ICBMs?

Because it is very difficult to shoot down a suitcase. (That's how any Nukes will enter this country, NOT by ICBMs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it is very difficult to shoot down a suitcase. (That's how any Nukes will enter this country, NOT by ICBMs.

And so then we're back to threat B v defense A -- that defense A does not protect us from threat B is not an argument against defense A.

There's no doubt that there is a growing 3rd world missile threat to the United States -- any number of countries are deveoping missiles that can reach us, with North Kore and Iran in the lead. N

Why you just assume the're never be used - a necessary condition for your argument to hold water -- is beyond reason.

 

[doniston]

So, do you have specific instances, or not?

If you think you can show where anything I said was a lie, or misrepresents the truth, or anything similar, I'd LOVE to see it.

Otherwise, you're simply trying to get away from a position you know you cannot defend.

OK, you two are batting my name around like I was a third cousin thrice removed, so I guess it is time to make my own position quite clear.

1. I am opposed to the ICBM (flounders) Starwars (Sharks) controverse.

2. IF there were any real danger from ICBMs, it would be one thing, likewise, if the Starwars were anywhere near effective, It might be worth the chance that the OCBM threat was real.

3. Neither it true.

4. Starwars is proving to be a hit or miss proposition. It has long been known that they are less than 50% accurate. Thus, if they were sent to destroy 16 ICMMs on the way here, 8 would get thru. So let is suppose that fifty were on the way. How many Sharks would we have to deploy to stop even half of them from geting thru. Let's see now, that's 25 of our biggest cities. -not much left.

5. ICBMs, are a very inefficient way to destroy us, when our borders are so porous. Suitcase bombs could easily be smiggled in, placed where they would do the most harm. and likely, we would not even know who planted them.

6. Nope, As I said ealier. it is very difficult to shoot down a suitcase ---and it is extremely expensive to fund a virtually useless system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess it is time to make my own position quite clear.

Fair enough.

1. I am opposed to the ICBM (flounders) Starwars (Sharks) controverse.
2. IF there were any real danger from ICBMs, it would be one thing, likewise, if the Starwars were anywhere near effective, It might be worth the chance that the OCBM threat was real.
3. Neither it true

Both are true.
-While neither North Korea or Iran are ICBM capable right now, both will be soon enough. This, unarguably, constitutes a threat to the US
-The test results for the NMD system, at the VERY least, confirms the question as to if it is possible to regularly and effectively engage incoming ICBM warheads. The tests -prove- the hit-to-kill concept; the only remaining questions revolve around fire control and system reliability, both of which are relatively simple technical details.

4. Starwars is proving to be a hit or miss proposition. It has long been known that they are less than 50% accurate.

Please provide relevant data that backs this up.

So let is suppose that fifty were on the way. How many Sharks would we have to deploy to stop even half of them from geting thru. Let's see now, that's 25 of our biggest cities.

Even if you were right, losing 25 cities is better than losing 50.

5. ICBMs, are a very inefficient way to destroy us, when our borders are so porous. Suitcase bombs could easily be smiggled in, placed where they would do the most harm. and likely, we would not even know who planted them.

Threat B, defense A.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look!! MORE proof that it will never work!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...Type=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stunned silence from the "It will never work" left?

 

[glockmail]

Stunned silence from the "It will never work" left?

Did you expect anything less?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did you expect anything less?

Its not like they let the truth stand in their way any other time.