Missile Defense

[HoleInTheVoid]

It only took 300 advisors to change his mind...

[youtube]NP06C37o35Q[/youtube]

EXIT QUESTION: In order for SDI to work you have to have certain ground-based assets, such as radar stattions and launchers...AND they have to be near the potential target areas.

As one of the emerging threats is from Iran and for the foreseeable future they will only have medium-ranged missiles that would place Europe in jeopardy well before the US, but subject to nuclear blackmail nonetheless. Naturally that means assets in Europe.

But those assets agitate the Russians.

Is Obama willing to antagonize the Russians to make good on his current promise to pursue missile defense?

 

[Haro]

SDI does not work, will never work, and was never intended to work

 

[dilloduck]

SDI does not work, will never work, and was never intended to work

Its the thought that counts

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

SDI does not work, will never work, and was never intended to work

So why is Obama endorsing SDI?

BTW - it has workED.

 

[Haro]

So why is Obama endorsing SDI?

BTW - it has workED.

In what way?

 

[Haro]

And if memory serves McCain supports it as well.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

I asked 2 questions, which one are you referring to (or is it both)?

 

[Haro]

I asked 2 questions, which one are you referring to (or is it both)?

Sorry, in what way did the SDI work?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

successful test missile defense - Yahoo! Search Results

Of course this returns us to the prime question: why is Obama suddenly endorsing missile defense?

It seems either A) your conclusions are mistaken about missile defense and are behind your candidate or B) your candidate is in error about missile defense or C) he's pandering for votes

 

[Haro]

successful test missile defense - Yahoo! Search Results

Of course this returns us to the prime question: why is Obama suddenly endorsing missile defense?

It seems either A) your conclusions are mistaken about missile defense and are behind your candidate or B) your candidate is in error about missile defense or C) he's pandering for votes

Ok, I was wrong, they got it to work once. I guess A is correct. But it was never meant to work

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Ok, I was wrong, they got it to work once. I guess A is correct. But it was never meant to work

Except we've also used it to shoot down and errant satellite.

Never MEANT to work? How do you support that assumption especially after Gulf War v1.0 and the work by the Israelis?

We also have systems on line designed to pop mortars and artillery shells out of the air and they are currently deployed in Israel and Iraq.

 

[DiveCon]

Ok, I was wrong, they got it to work once. I guess A is correct. But it was never meant to work

actually, if you have been keeping up with it, they have had it work several times, one tier of the system is already in deployment mode
you must be one of those libs that are totally ignorant of the military and dont understand the system is multi-tiered and they have been havingt success on all levels of it

 

[user_name_guest]

Does Bush support this? Does this mean that Obama, McCain, and Bush agree on something.

 

[rayboyusmc]

SDI is one of the boondoogles that a military contractor friend will get rich on.

Please post the one successful use. Not the one where they put a tracker on the missile to be shot down.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It only took 300 advisors to change his mind...

McCain changes his mind every day with input from no one. He must be a real leader.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Sounds like your argument is with Obama, gaybot.

Or is he just lying to get elected?

 

[Hum Dinger]

SDI, as was originally concieved by Ronald Reagan, is not by a long shot, near existance. The weaponization of space mentioned by Obama is still a very very long way off, no matter how much funding it gets.

What does exist is a very scaled down, non-space based system, that would in no way be effective against a mass Russian missile launch, but may be effective against a small scale launch from Iran or N. Korea.

Obama isn't contradicting himself, you're just not paying attention to the details.

Our present plan to base these missile defense systems in Poland will not provide adequate defense for a missile launch from Iran. If that were the intention, we would place them in Isreal, Saudi Arabia or even Iraq (we do have some influence there).

The placement of these missiles in Poland is entirely to aggrevate Russia. A country that has offered both to host these missile defense systems and to mutually decommission all of it's ICBMs.

The militarization of eastern Europe is offense and provocative to the Russians. It's also silly because Russia can take over Eastern Europe and probably the rest of Europe without nuclear weapons.

They don't need missiles, they have energy and capitalism, all they need is a bit of time.

We are the ones that are aggrevating a new cold war - because we know that if we let the free-market system rule, all of Europe is going to be Russia's bitch pretty soon.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

WTF is the point of antagonizing Russia?

And there are missile defense assets in Israel...and even on Aegis cruisers...and Alaska to guard against the NorKs.

whoops! there goes that moonbat theory.

 

[DiveCon]

WTF is the point of antagonizing Russia?

And there are missile defense assets in Israel...and even on Aegis cruisers...and Alaska to guard against the NorKs.

whoops! there goes that moonbat theory.

they just don't understand the MULTI-TIERED system