"Not to deploy a system that does not work"

03-26-07, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menace

Quote:

Originally Posted by waste gate

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...473848,00.html

Interesting remarks from someone who should >insert: KNOW< some bits about it.

Its pretty much publically available info that these systems are completely and totally inadequate. In a congressional hearing, the program director publically admitted to congress that there is a 0% chance of it actually intercepting a real missile...

watch section 6
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../missile/view/

What's happened is that Washington politicians (mostly Bush and his cronies) are human flight was impossibleusing this program and that fact that JQ Public is uninformed and ignorant of the facts to try to ingender votes. "Vote for me, I support ballistic missile defense."... knowing that most people have no clue that the system is full of bunk.

I guess that is why the Soviets and the US ABM treaty was signed. Neither side thought it could be accomplished. Or, both sides knew it could be accomplished and would leave the other side vulnerable.

It's the former. It's almost impossible to stop a SINGLE nuclear warhead, let alone hundreds, maybe thousands if launched by a capable nation.

Impossible is a big word my friend. On December 16, 1903 human flight was impossible. By the next day it was not impossible.

Tchocky · 03-26-07, 11:34 PM

I've always thought that ABM was there to keep a kind of stability. A crazy, twisted stability.

bradclark1 · 03-27-07, 09:41 AM

I don't think it's wrong to want a system to destroy ICBMs. You have to make the technology to do it, it isn't just their and I could see where it is a money pit but just so long as it's spent responsibly.

03-26-07, 11:34 PM	#2
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I've always thought that ABM was there to keep a kind of stability. A crazy, twisted stability. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

03-27-07, 09:41 AM	#3
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	I don't think it's wrong to want a system to destroy ICBMs. You have to make the technology to do it, it isn't just their and I could see where it is a money pit but just so long as it's spent responsibly.