nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 02:37 AM

What you guys need is not SDI - the current enemy doesn't use ICBMs. They sneak around the globe until they find a soft spot, sneak in under your very noses and - in the worst case - assemble their dirty bomb just where it's supposed to blow up.
That kind of opponent needs a top class intelligence service (well funded and trained) to be met with.

Posted by: 42317 at November 20, 2006 06:04 AM

MY COMMENT IS THIS HAVE NO FEAR THERE WILL BE A SAVING LIGHT SABER PIERCING THE SKY AND FRYING THE INNARDS OF FOREIGN BALLISTICS LAUNCHED AT THE US AND ALLIES. THE BOEING 747 PLATFORMED ABL(ANTI-BALLIISTIC LASER) FROM THE REPORTS I'VE READ ALBEIT ON THE BOEING WEBSITE AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MIL-TEC SITES SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE FIVE (5) AIRBORNE UNITS ARE PERFORMING WELL... GUESS SOME OF WHAT WE READ MAY JUST BE SLIGHT OF HAND..i.e PAY FULL ATTENTION TO THE FAILED SYSTEM BEFORE YOU AND PLEASE PAY NOATTENTION TO AND FORGET ABOUT THE BIG BAD MOBILE DEFENSIVE/OFFENSIVE DEPLOYED LASER ORBITING BEYOND THE REACH OF YOUR RADAR... ???

Posted by: G R ROBERTS at November 14, 2006 08:16 PM

We have to continue to put every reasonable resource to work on an interceptor system to protect us and civilization.

Posted by: Robert W.McKey M.D. at September 16, 2006 10:40 PM

Too many people can only see the immediate future and not the long term field of view. In today's world we have to be one step ahead of our enemies. The events of 9-11 was the results of their being one step ahead of us. In comparison, I would rather prevent my auto accident death by wearing my seat belt. If implimenting a Star Wars Defense system is putting on a seat belt, then boys.....strap me in. I want to live to see the terrorists demise and not become the ravaged pieces of war in their victory. Remember when we were kids and we could go blocks away from home in the neighborhood all alone without fear? Those days, sadly, are gone. Now as Americans in foreign lands we have to fear for our safety do to terrorists. Were on the edge of fearing for our lives in this land we call home. By not following through with the Star Wars defense system, it will be like leaving the back door to our home open. I don't know about you, but when I go to bed at night, the back door gets locked shut. Since a missile attack comes through the night lit skies, our back door needs a lock on it with the Star Wars Defense System. Believe me, we'll all sleep better with that kind of lock on the back door of our homeland. Let's beat them at their own game.

Posted by: Bill at September 14, 2006 08:50 AM

They aren't Vulcans. They're a bunch of Klingons and Ferengi.

And contiinuing to attempt to build a system that continues to NOT work is stupid on the face of it, and is NOT a sign of perseverance or fortitude. Especially when the ONLY country left on the planet who conceivabley even might launch ICMB's at the US is China, and that is nearly as likely as that they will simultaneously release all their political enemies from prison, and that is slim to NONE.

Posted by: Trebissky at September 13, 2006 11:21 AM

Dan, Regarding your "so called" article on "Star Wars" missile defense. Your disrespectful remark embedded story was a pour read. The advent of the missile defense system by President Ronald Reagan was a far sighted inspired move. These type of technologies do not just "POP" into existance overnight without extensive research and development, which we are engaged in. Admitedly, much time has passed since the beginning but you decry failure when in fact one step, even a baby step, in the direction of a successful strategic defense system is yards ahead of the enemy. The program is not an insult to "Star Wars" but rather a testiment of American fortitude and inginuity. Can you do better , sir ? I think not. You are probably one who thinks that we do not have an enemy threat out there in the world capable of bringing the battle to our shores. What a moron. How is it that they allow such a pansy to write for the Military.com website, you display no confident American traits ?

Posted by: Tod Rushing at September 10, 2006 10:24 AM

To the guy who keeps pushing the idea that no one has a ballistic delivery system married to a bomb. I’ve got to say that you are incredibly short sighted if you don’t think they will be developed. Not only that but they really don’t have to prove they work well to blackmail the West. All they have to be a credible threat. Let say Iran N. Korea or Iran gets one missile to fire and hit a target out of 20. At that point we have to assume that they can field a viable system whether it works well or not. Then lets say we have Clinton or Reed as President and we don’t have a missile defense system. Now lets just say that N. Korea or Iran threatens to nuke San Francisco if we don’t provide them with say 50 billion in aid. What are your options now without a missile defense system?
A. You can preemptively strike them starting a war, which I’m sure you’d probably protest against.
B. You can let San Francisco be destroyed then start a war with this nation.
C. Pay them off.
What are you going to do then dippy????

Another scenario with no missile defense in place. N. Korea invades S. Korea and informs the US that if it sends any aid to S. Korea they will nuke LA. What you going to do then mister suit case bombs are so scary.

Just because these nations can try and get a bomb in to the West through Smuggling doesn’t mean we can choose not to defend against the other delivery systems as well. That is like saying that we are no longer going to have any air defenses because they currently don’t have a viable air force. As soon as you don’t defended against a method of attack any smart general is going to find a way to attack you that way.

As long as there are despotic nations that concentrate all the power of that nation into the hands a few or even single person there will be a chance of them trying to develop systems to black mail the West. We can either remove the leadership of these governments and replace it with a more rational form of government ( Iraq and Afghanistan) or let them develop the systems and use our missile defense system to discourage them from using it. Unless we somehow muster the national will to go into all these rogue nations and remove their governments and replace them, the only option is going to be to have a defense system to give us the ability to not have to be international police men in every crack pot nation on the globe.

The cat is out of the bag people. When that Pakistani scientist (can’t think of his name) started marketing his services to make these relatively low cost uranium enrichment centrifuges the gig was up. Were not going to be able to stop these systems from getting in the hands of bad people unless we don’t allow bad people to have the resources to produce the systems for enrichment (removing bad people from power) or we let them get enriched uranium and have a viable defense network (intelligence, tactical, and strategic).

Posted by: lamargl at September 9, 2006 06:19 PM

I believe BMD research needs to be persued but the funds spent on it need to be balanced with the more immediate needs of our national defense and what we are trying to acomplish in the most dangerous part of the world, bringing more stability to the middle east, if possible.
Another point to consider, no one would even have a home computer, CD player, or access to an internet if wasn't for the tremendous military spending during the cold war. Military advancements since world war II have always lead and spured new advancements not only technologically, but other venues of our daily lives we take for granted. So in my humble opinion the technology needs to be researched by us first, or someone else will leaving us behind the curve on the next unexpected dicodomy to move the world, undermining our leadership in the world. Who knows it could lead to hand held "ray guns", meteor defense system, new power generation technology, or cars that can drive themselves in 20 years. That's one of the wonderful (and dangerous) things about researching new technologies.
On a side note others have touched upon here, M.A.D. can work against the terrorist I believe, but not as most people view the philosophy. We know who the terrorist are after their attacks, it vital to their movement. And how much money their families get after such an attack, a vital recuitment tool. If we let all future terrorist know in no uncertain terms, if they proceed with an attack we will send a surgical strike team to their home and kill every member of their immediate family in response, they will think twice. Now I know most sheep are saying this is crazy, unjust, and horrific. I agree, but after a few times of following thru on this course of action the terrorist groups recruitment levels should plumment and they will have no choice but to change their tactics. Suicide bombers may not care about their own lives, but they do about their families. God and family, it is the basis of the twisted teachings of the cults that infect Islam. By the way let's call them cults, they are no different than Jim Jones or David Koresh. The words "fundalmentalist or extremist" gives them too much cedibility in my opinion.
If the Christian faith was forced to be as uneducated as the muslem faith is we would have the same problem as the middle east. Oh wait, my bad we did, we call it the "Dark Ages". Well, that's my opinion, I could be wrong.

Posted by: just another sheepdog at September 9, 2006 12:56 PM

"as for the suitcase bombs, there are not nuclear but atomic suitcase bombs" last time i checked nuclear and atomic implied the same thing... and i want to see these "suitcase bombs" because i still have a hard time believing you can fit a nuke in a box. everyone knows our borders suck and i do think we should really crack down on um, but after the billions of dollars and 20 years it took to develop the 4 batteries that are arleady in place, whats the purpose in dumping this missile system in which we already worked our butts of to build? i don't care if missiles aren't raining down,it doesn't mean one WON'T, and since it's already built and seems to work I say why not use it? it's like spending 20 years of your life saving up for a brand new Mustang, buying it, and then taking it to the scrapyard because in the end you don't have the need for speed any more. think of this as a multibillion dollar Mustang... and you wanna throw it away just cuz it doesn't apply to your immediate needs? stupid. besides, i know a few countries who would probably be interested in buying a missile intercept system *caugh israel caugh*

Posted by: Ben at September 9, 2006 11:17 AM

"So, we can't build antimissle systems because our enemies might use suitcase nukes?
This is just stupid."

Maybe if you would learn to read - oh wait, thats right, 30% of the US population is barely literate enough to sign a document. What's "just stupid" is to build a missile defense system for MISSILES THAT AREN'T COMING. What part of that do you not understand? Do you think nuclear armed ballistic missiles are cheap or easy to build/operate/maintain? North Korea EXPORTS ballistic missiles and it still cannot produce or reliably launch a large missile. Even Russian ICBMs are UNRELIABLE (ever hear of the several failed commerical launches of Russian ICBMs?).

as for the suitcase bombs, there are not nuclear but atomic suitcase bombs. they exist because the US built them and so did Russia. i find it on the order of magnitudes more likely for a terrorist organization to deliver by unconventional means a sub-megaton class (1 kiloton range, 50 kg of weapons grade uranium) atomic device (fission reaction) than for the only 2 countries in the world, capable, launch nuclear ICBM at CONUS. i have VERY serious doubts nuclear isotope detectors are stopping tranportation of nuclear material across the border. the GAO successfully imported radioactive material across both borders which clearly demonstrates more training and equipment is necessary (as in sharing of information).

GAO Test of Border Security
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06940thigh.pdf

Atomic Suitcase Reference
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/

Nuclear Weapon Overview (it's not DoD but its pretty comprehensive)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Posted by: Engineer in Training at September 9, 2006 10:48 AM

last time i checked it was damn near impossible to fit a nuke in a suitcase so we really don't have to worry about it... think i saw it happen in a hollywoodised movie once? but yeah, basically to get plutonium in the ammount needed to start a reaction, you're gonna have to find one huge suitcase. i'm just glad the government actually pulled through one of its projects this decade after seeing so many important defense investments like the comanche get shot down just before production started...

Posted by: Ben at September 9, 2006 08:53 AM

So, we can't build antimissle systems because our enemies might use suitcase nukes?
This is just stupid.
Suitcase nukes are extremely easy to detect.
In fact, ALL entry points into the US are equipped with nuclear isotope detectors. It is simply a matter of building a better fence to prevent unauthorized individuals (Illegal Immigrants?) from entering this country.
The cost for such a wall are about the same as the missle defense system.
I vote for doing both.

The nuclear detectors being used will find suitcase nukes, even if they constitute a 1 cubic foot space within a 50 foot by 50 foot by 50 foot cube of solid lead.
http://www.berkeleynucleonics.com/

Oh, and MAD only works if the enemy doesn't care about dying.
Funny, we got a few of those out there.

Posted by: jpickens at September 8, 2006 11:21 PM

"We should field a system that hopefully will work initially, and can be improved over time"

So just start righting checks for $53 billion and hope something works? just build missiles and hope for the best? if demanding accountabuility for how my tax money is spent on my defense, then i guess i am liberal. there is more to life than liberals and conservatives. if you manage to break free from only seeing a dichotomy then maybe you will be taken more seriously.

"YOU become the hero that figures out how to defend against a suitcase bomb."

Easy: just buy it before someone else does. I just saved us billions upon billions of dollars. human intelligence will pay more dividends with regards to non-state terrorist organizations than any technologically advanced defense system. it would have saved us even more than the BMD's cost if someone checked their facts before OIF. why is it unacceptable to demand my government know what is being shipped to my country? why is it unacceptable to demand my government competently screen commericial air passengers in a timely manner? Why when i am footing the bill?

Tell me then what is the real threat? an ICBM attack? you are missing a nuclear warhead and reliable ICBMs. Formulate a coherent response without degrading into name calling and we might be able to discuss something without a "snobberish" attitude. You provide no details on what you say is "the very real threat". What "they" are you referring to? Terrorists in general? Iran? China?

Don't reduce everything to black and white because thats not reality either.

Posted by: Engineer in Training at September 8, 2006 09:07 PM

We should field a system that hopefully will work initially, and can be improved over time, to prevent the "liberal American democrat Bush loather" and the rest of us simple minded ignorant conservatives being turned into glass. You Bush haters need to get a grip on reality and focus your attention on the very real threats, nuclear and otherwise that would have all of us dead...even liberals and ACLU attorneys

Try turning your obstuctionist behavior and snobbish attitude into creativity to defend all of us, and YOU become the hero that figures out how to defend against a suitcase bomb. Should be no problem, since you are obviously much smarter than the general population.

Posted by: Wally Gator at September 8, 2006 08:26 PM

Kinetic ICBM kills have always been an engineering problem not a technological gap but more accuracy comes with more money. Lasers, as some one has suggested, is not technologically mature enough yet to field in an operational system. The ABL is incredibly large from its power requirements to burn through ICBM skins (with some hardened against such attacks).

What some BMD proponents fail to realize is that we know who is "capable" of launching a ICBM nuclear first strike (China and Russia). Neither of these countries will execute such a plan in the near future for MAD doctrine that managed to endure the Cold War. Let me also state that the current arsenal China has to deliver nuclear munitions to the Contiental US number in the range of 25 or so. Besides that, there is also the Axis of Evil: Iran and North Korea. There is a HUGE difference in developing a nuclear device and developing a nuclear warhead. Neither of these countries has been able to develop a nuclear WARHEAD. What country, then, would launch a nuclear ICBM without "warning"? None. What is stopping a country/organization from selling/delivering a nuclear device for a terrorist to deliver by very unconventional means (semi-truck from Mexico, small vessel in NY harbor, shipping container)? Nothing. There is a need for theater BMD (THEL, Patriot, Arrow) but not a global or national BMD. I would rather have that money spent in comprehensive human intelligence and detection capabilities (which we do not even have for commericial air travel). Yeah it's awesome we can shoot missiles down but it is not like we don't know who fired it or when they are going to fire it (North Korea's ICBM that can reach CONUS takes 2 hours to fuel before launch). Show me a realistic threat assessment that requires a national BMD and I'll sign on. Until a viable threat and be confidentally projected to need a BMD, spend the money elsewhere and more wisely.

Posted by: Engineer in Training at September 8, 2006 07:02 PM

By the way, extremely well thought out post Roadkill. I'll try and keep that one in my vault and use it from time to time. I love the analogy.

Posted by: lamargl at September 8, 2006 05:34 PM

Suit case bombs aren’t out there yet. If they were the US or Western Europe would be short at least one city already.

If the author of the other post thinks that every weapons system developed has to be perfect before fielded then he should probably look at the history of why most of our weapons systems have letters after the main designators. For example the F-14A, B, C, or D or the M16 (original), M16 A1 (much improved), M16 A2, etcetera, etcetera. Nothing works perfectly in a weapons system, they are always being upgraded and improved that’s the way new tech systems are always brought on line.

Finally, your solution seems to be to do nothing rather than at least move forward with something that has a chance of an intercept because we might have to fire three of them to get a hit instead of one. A very typical unthinking liberal argument once again presented in one of these threads.

Posted by: lamargl at September 8, 2006 05:31 PM

But just how well will it track and intercept a suitcase weapon coming across the border in a bag?

Posted by: W.Bird at September 8, 2006 04:21 PM

I happen to agree with Mr. Dupont, why should we field a system that doesn't work well? And don't give me all that bullshit about how since I agree with this 'pea-sized brain liberal' as one nameless person called him, that I am acting like the French. I say that if we are going to field any type of weapon system, we had better take the time to make sure that we get it right. I'm not saying make it perfect, I'm just saying make a system with at least a 70% chance of intercepting missiles.

I am a liberal American, I am a Democrat and I loath George Bush (both of them). If you want to give me any intelligent comments then go ahead.

Posted by: Above-average American at September 8, 2006 02:56 PM

Any Executive Staff of this Great Country should fully fund Defense Technology always, and our Troops and their families who are sacraficing and serving their Country during War.

Posted by: Mike Petroules at September 8, 2006 02:43 PM

We need to do something to defend us, even if it isn't perfect. I'd rather have a slim chance of keeping Americans alive than none if someone were to throw an ICBM at us

Posted by: concerned citizen at September 8, 2006 02:13 PM

We could update our syste.Update our missiles but of course our sattelites are most important to keep udated1 a.bauwens

Posted by: anthony bauwens at September 8, 2006 11:52 AM

I´m for the missle defense! Having no defense is no deterrent. I hope that the technology is improved and a better shootdown rate attained. However, I do not agree that using a missle to shoot down another missle is the right way to go. It should not be called Star Wars! In fact it is a transitory stage leading to the final and real missile defense network. But I believe that a better missile defense shield can be achieved using Laser weapons. It is the Laser that will produce the ultimate weapons with the highest accuracy. It is the Laser Defense shield that can and will be called Star Wars Defense Shield. I firmly believe that this is what President Reagan envisioned and not the current missile against missile defense. That is why the current proponents of a defense shield based on missiles are having problems. Because they will never be able to get 100% accuracy! The variables to overcome are such that it is virtually mathematically and algorithmically impossible to achieve a very high shoot down rate. But if they concentrate their efforts in the new technology of high definition Lasers, then a 100% shoot down rate will be achieved with ease and irregardless of the variables. That is the way to go. But getting the missle producers to change technologies is like getting the copper and fiber optic network carriers to change to Wireless network technology. It won´t happen because their engineers are old fashioned and caught up within their old habits; "If it works leave it alone and don´t change it". They are not inclined to explore new technologies to solve complex problems of today. They just want to keep applying the old remedy as long as it makes money for them. Its like the old problem of relying on fossil fuels to provide for our transportation needs instead of switching to Hydrogen and giving ALL those oil loving executives and our oil producing enemies a swift kick in their rears and sending them where they need to go. All I´m saying is that the technologies exist for all Americans and the Free World to get out of the financial situations they are in today. But as long as governments don´t draft a course change to head in those directions, it will not happen. They lack will power and that is what is doing us in.

Posted by: Mike Salles at September 8, 2006 09:48 AM

StarWars is a great concept and I like nonnuclear warheads on ICBM's also. I heard a rumor that the 10 MIRV MX/Peacekeeper can place any one, or all 10, warhead(s) in a target the size of the Rose Bowl from 6,000 miles, and you can pick your end zone. The kinetic energy generated by a hyper-velocity incoming warhead, as well as a modicum of modern conventional explosive within same, coupled with the rumored accuracy, should be enough to uncover any underground nuclear capability that Iran has managed to conceal.

Posted by: digipapa at September 8, 2006 09:23 AM

Let's be honest here - Mr. Dupont possesses a very small mind, not his fault, sometimes nature makes a mistake. Mr. Dupont, like most liberals cannot get their collective, pea sized-brains around anything logical or technical, let alone something that is both. Missile Defense is highly technical (strike one for Mr. Dupont), it is also logical - knock down enemy missile's so as to protect innocent American's (allow me to belabor the point: terrorist's don't care who they kill)- (strike two for Mr. Dupont). So where does that leave Mr. Dupont? It leave's him in the unenviable position of making a very stupid argument; that it (MD) "won't" work cause it "doesn't" work now. (strike three for Mr. Dupont - his arguement is neither technical or logical). Mr. Dupont - you are OUT!

Posted by: Average American at September 8, 2006 09:03 AM

'Well what else are we suppose to try when N. Korea, Iran, Iraq and other terrorist grouped countries start tossing Necular Bombs our way?

Duck and Run??? '

we throw back much bigger ones until they can throw no more!

Posted by: wolf in sheeps cloths at September 8, 2006 06:39 AM

I don't understand the debate. "Star Wars" anti-ballistic technology works. We (and the Soviets) have been testing it since the '60s. A XLIM-49A Spartan made it's first intercept in 1970 as part of the Safeguard Project (1969-1975) and we had a deployed system up to 1975 when Congress shut it down.

If you have the time I would recommend "The Secret Weapons of the Cold War" by Bill Yenne published by Berkey Books and available from Penguin.

On a personal note, it seems odd that an editorial would be pushed as a news story. Maybe I don't understand the concept of "journalist"

Anyway, yall have a great day.

Posted by: Robert Scaggs at September 8, 2006 06:34 AM

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?
-- William J. Bennett in a lecture to the US Naval Academy November 24,
1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.

Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year.
Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:

We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell.
Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.

For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it.
There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.
There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens?

What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.
The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf.
He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Posted by: Roadkill at September 8, 2006 05:30 AM

We surrender. Not going to fight back anymore. Hey don’t shoot I dropped my gun. See, we have a little white flag please don’t shoot me. Can’t we all just get along? Let just talk about this and maybe try some conflict resolution techniques. If we just play nice they’ll leave us alone. Hell that’s the way it works with bullies, right?

Sounds a little French or maybe a bit like a Democrat?

Got to wonder about you people who aren’t even willing to try and defend yourselves against the bad guys in the world. Sanity and reason seem to be a bit in short supply in this article and a couple of these posts.

If we’re not going to defend our nation then we should simply give up now and start putting women in burkas and stop allowing anyone to be educated other than our new leaders.

We are very lucky that Reagan took the advise of some very intelligent people and began the process of getting missile defense up and running. Not only did it end the cold war it laid the ground work for a system that actually has the potential of destroying incoming ICMB’s instead of just watching them come and incinerate a good half million people per missile. Our “enlightened” and oh so helpful “friends” on the left would have you believe that just talking it is more moral. I suppose it would be more moral to have say a half million American’s, per missile, get incinerated and then we’d probably have to kill as many as 20-30 million of the people that live in the bad guys country. I suppose if all people we’re rational and trustworthy we could hope for “talking” to work. But since I would assume that everyone reading this has known at least one unstable individual in their life that there will always be a chance of a wacko getting in power in a nation that has developed the bomb.

Nothing as complex a missile hitting another missile is going to be developed issue free. It is ground breaking technology but if we can in 10 years go from having 4-5 sorties per target in DS to 4-5 targets per sortie in Afgan. and Iraq then I think we might be able to work out the engineering issues with a completely new system for shooting down missiles. I’ve got to think, based on our nations weapons development track record, that we’ll have a pretty tough system in the next few years. Besides this is only one of the 4 or 5 systems that are coming on line. The AGIES Cruiser ant ballistic missile alone is a very promising system that could probably handle N. Korea in the very near future if we had to.

Got to call it but, people need to think about the consequences of their actions and I really hope you remember this post if a city or three in the US ceases to exist because a Liberal Congress or (heaven forbid) President cuts or cancels spending for these systems.

Posted by: lamargl at September 7, 2006 11:14 PM

i think this "star wars" program can work. If you think about how it work in Pres. Reagan administration, the cold war ended sooner than we thought! We plan it out better than the soviet union did and they gave up on theirs. Now when threats from the "Axis of evil" pops up they would want to rethink hard in attacking us. Thus, counter their movement!

Posted by: UJ L. at September 7, 2006 11:04 PM

Well what else are we suppose to try when N. Korea, Iran, Iraq and other terrorist grouped countries start tossing Necular Bombs our way?

Duck and Run??? Our compassion for others is what makes us the strongest country in the world...

The Clinton Administration cut our Military down to this small amount we have now. He paid High Bonuses to certain Officers and Enlisted Personnel to leave early or forced out after 20 yrs service.

I for one am hoping Star Wars works for your sake as well as the rest of America.

ReCheck your information. We are suffering Militararly because of the Clintons.....

Prior Service Vetern E-5

Posted by: Kelley King at September 7, 2006 10:00 PM

Perhaps my sentences would read better if I could complete them"

That should have read "...the republic was being morphed into an Empire by the insiders."

As far as being communism goes, though, they were more of an enlightened socialist regulated capitalism, rather because they got along well with the Ferengi but actively fought the Borg.

Unless, of course the Borg weren't the ultimate communists, but rabid NeoLiberal NeoConservatives, presuming it their ultimate destiny to assimilate all.

Posted by: kelley b. at August 26, 2006 08:35 PM

Kelley, just to point out, the United Federation of Planets wasn't morphing into a representative democracy. To the contrary, one can clearly observe it's descent into Communism between the original series and the Next Generation. After all, the Federation has eliminated money and property by Picard's time, the Federation Council is /not/ elected, and Starfleet actively seeks to suppress other cultures from advancement. Hell, Picard didn't even understand the concept of investments!

Posted by: Renegade Paladin at August 26, 2006 05:41 AM

Possibly the Star Wars analogy was chosen because in the Star Trek universe, diplomacy and intelligence was valued over militancy and ignorance.

Even though the Star Trek universe was a far more diverse and dangerous place than the Star Wars universe, whose enemies mostly lurked within.

The Federation of Planets wasn't out to convert anyone to an old religion whose fire had died out except in the minds of a few fanatics.

Or perhaps it was because the Federation of Planets was moving towards a universal representative republican democracy where cultural differences were celebrated, while the future NeoCon PNAC vision was more like the Star Wars universe, where a republic was being morphed into an Empire by the i.

Or maybe it was only because the Rumsfeld/ Cheney cabal that worked in the Reagan administration thought Darth Vader was really cool- which seems to be about the limit of their planning for anything.

Posted by: kelley b. at August 25, 2006 08:57 AM

I am curious to know if in the author's opinion this article could not be considered a "hit piece" missile defense. My question is based on the title of the article and the following statement the article includes: “I also think the name's insulting.”
Maybe I am being too harsh :)

Posted by: luc at August 24, 2006 09:21 PM

Do you really think the Bush administration cares about what the Russians and Chinese think? They certainly didn't when they withdrew us from the 1972 ABM treaty.

Or maybe they did, and that was justification for withdrawl, the only consequence of which could be to spur the arms race. The only remaining question: are we the only ones running?

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at August 24, 2006 03:56 PM

I don't know about that pedestrian, the Bush administration has a demonstrated a penchant for ignoring Russia and China on missile defense issues. I think the main reason Bush has been silent on testing recently is due to the fact that the Ground-based Midcourse hasn't been tested since for four years. Not surprisingly, that timeframe matches up pretty well with the Spacewar article you cited.

I agree that the U.S. doesn't need to engage in nationalistic pap like the French do, but that doesn't mean the Bush administration doesn't do it anyways. To be fair though, most missile defense advocates in the Bush administration are motivated by a belief that stability based on mutual vulnerability is wrong/immoral, rather than notions of "hyperpower-dom."

They still have to beat the drums of nationalism after a successful test, but only to attract Congress's largesse. The United States is already an unassailable superpower to them ayway, acting like Mike Tyson at a weigh-in with Lennox Lewis doesn't seem necessary.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at August 24, 2006 02:07 PM

>If there's a successful intercept, expect the Bush administration and its backers to talk it up
>as another sign the system is ready to go.

I'll bet not, at least in public. Think. If success, what would Russia and China think next. You don't want to always talk about success that could attract enemy's eyes. We don't need to be like French with cheap nationalism, those who consider themselves as Ultra-Power.

Reference
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Silent_On_BMD_Success.html

Posted by: pedestrian at August 24, 2006 12:01 PM