kallend 2,174 #1 November 17, 2004 Good article in this month's Scientific American on why the missile shield as currently envisaged is just a huge waste of money. www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000A45A2-E044-115D-A04483414B7F0000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 November 17, 2004 Quote . . . why the missile shield as currently envisaged is just a huge waste of money. Well, yes and no. It's a huge waste of money in that it will never work or be deployed. However, if you think of it as a government works program, it does create and maintain a few jobs. I don't think all the time, money or effort will go to waste though because some of it has cross over uses for the laser systems. Quote Dr. Evil: Are those fricken' sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their fricken' heads? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #3 November 17, 2004 Nothing really new here. I did a research paper on particle beam weapons years ago and many similar arguments were made with regards to conventional interceptors. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #4 November 17, 2004 QuoteNothing really new here. I did a research paper on particle beam weapons years ago and many similar arguments were made with regards to conventional interceptors. Indeed. So why does the government keep spending $billions on it? Corporate welfare?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 November 17, 2004 "Should be replaced with a more effective system" The marketplace with jammed with all sorts of missle defense products. What pre tel, should it be replaced with? I know the idea of "hitting a bullet with a bullet" is extreme, and could never be perfected. As was noted in the first paragraph of the article, it is the first phase. This system is designed specifically to counter an ICBM type weapon, not a sub-launched or IRBM system. Even military has told Congress that this is the bare beginning, a basic capability. Garwin is whining that it isn't enough and he offers not a single alternative.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 November 17, 2004 Quote Indeed. So why does the government keep spending $billions on it? Corporate welfare? Yes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #7 November 17, 2004 Quote"Should be replaced with a more effective system" The marketplace with jammed with all sorts of missle defense products. What pre tel, should it be replaced with? I know the idea of "hitting a bullet with a bullet" is extreme, and could never be perfected. As was noted in the first paragraph of the article, it is the first phase. This system is designed specifically to counter an ICBM type weapon, not a sub-launched or IRBM system. Even military has told Congress that this is the bare beginning, a basic capability. Garwin is whining that it isn't enough and he offers not a single alternative. It is NO capability and a waste of money. Any rogue state capable of creating an ICBM could create countermeasures to this system. Garwin does suggest alternatives. And, of course, the terrorist nuke will not arrive in the USA by ICBM anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
