dorbie 0 #26 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteThat depends on what you see as the problem it is trying to address. well, is there *any* problem where it's better than 10% effective? So I'm supposed to respond in kind because you pulled a number out your ass? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 May 31, 2007 Just tell us what safety we'd get out of spending tens of billions of dollars. That number didn't come out of any ass, or did the horrible results from the tests done this decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #28 May 31, 2007 QuoteJust tell us what safety we'd get out of spending tens of billions of dollars. That number didn't come out of any ass, or did the horrible results from the tests done this decade. Well they were tests not demonstrations, there's a difference. The tests produced mixed results and some successes. Your attempt to misrepresent them tells a story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 May 31, 2007 Quote The tests produced mixed results and some successes. Your attempt to misrepresent them tells a story. LOL. Yep, I'm the one doing the misrepresenting here. You got a financial stake in it? We got a system that at best has qualified success with a simplified test, for a scenario that is one of the least likely to happen in real life. Pissing away money might make sense in a viewpoint that doesn't miss all the money blown in Iraq, but for anyone interested in a small deficit, it's as wasteful as it gets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #30 May 31, 2007 Strategy Page - mh Who Is The Enemy? May 30, 2007: Russia claims that a new model of its SS-24 ICBM can penetrate any defensive system. This claim is aimed at the new anti-missile system being built in Eastern Europe, to defend against possible attacks by North Korea or Iran. Russia, however, insists that the real target is Russian ICBMs, and thus the new SS-24 will deal with that. This logic mystifies Europeans and Americans, who see no situation where they would be under attack by Russian missiles. The best explanation for all this is that the Russian government is simply doing what is popular. Traditionally, Russia has been surrounded by enemies. Most Russians just assume that is true, even when it isn't. So when the Russian government goes on about all the hostile states on its borders, and what is being done to defend the country, the Russian people feel good. Yeah, it's weird, but that's the way it is at the moment. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #31 May 31, 2007 Quote We got a system that at best has qualified success with a simplified test, Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuote Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Maybe they've implemented a large number of dummy warheads on it. That was the presumed response had SDI gone anywhere. The more targets, the quicker it would fall apart. This isn't about MIRVs, it's about the missile. The missile defense system that the US is developing is designed to kill the missiles before a warhead is deployed. So, in a way, the Russian statement seems incomplete in some way. The SS18 is capable of carrying up to 10 warheads.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
jakee 1,611 #33 May 31, 2007 QuoteWe got a system that at best has qualified success with a simplified test, for a scenario that is one of the least likely to happen in real life. Pissing away money might make sense in a viewpoint that doesn't miss all the money blown in Iraq, but for anyone interested in a small deficit, it's as wasteful as it gets. Is that like the "9 out of 10 Scuds engaged by Patriot batteries during Gulf 1 were succesfully intercepted" claim? (Where 'intercepted' means that at one point in time the trajectory of a patriot missile crossed the trajectory of a Scud)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #34 June 8, 2007 Next: www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21873831-663,00.html... 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
