MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD: Is it needed?

[RyanH]

What countries to you all feel are our biggest threats? North Korea? MatttheSkyWalker--you mentioned that you doubt they are much of a threat.....

 

[Badkins21]

Although I respect the opinions of the more knowledgeable people on this subject--Matt--I have to say that when it comes to new technology, there is always, always skepticism. I'm not going into specifics, because I am not qualified when it comes to military technology, but IN GENERAL, anything "new," and "high-tech" is always feared because it MIGHT not work...But what if it could?

**And why the fuck would we care how other countries FEEL about it...that's the lamest friggin' point. Argue money, argue effectiveness, BUT don't argue "foreign relations" when it comes to defending American soil!!

 

[Wfabrizio]

Badkins, that is not the lamest point. A missle defense shield would have to operate internationally and domestically. Our NATO allies are not on-board with this idea because they know it will not pan out the way that they are pushing it.

Of course our President and his cronies will say it will work, they are the ones pushing for it. Their industrial friends are lobbying the piss out of Washington to get it done. The opinion of our allies should mean alot to you. They have an outside view and in every case an outside opinion needs to be reviewed.

 

[Fonz]

This thread is cracking me up........
Don't mean to flame, but do any of you guys do
aerospace/aeronautical engieering?

You guys are arguing about something you have
no knowledge about.

2 Things guys:

1. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!

It enters the atmosphere, then separates.
The warhead is made of Uranium(pure) which is
VERY DENSE and you'd have to nail it with a VERY
BIG explosive to destroy it.
It would have to be a skin-skin kill too.
Big explosive=extra weight=less manouverability=
not a chance of hitting the target.

To sum it up:
There is NO CHANCE of intercepting it.

2. Patriot missiles have a top-speed of Mach 3-5
(depending on the model/booster-type used).

IF THEY HAD PROBLEMS INTERCEPTING THE PATRIOT
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THEY COULD INTERCEPT
A BALLISTIC TRACK????? I think not.

The air defense shield is a current joke in the aerospace field.

The only theoretical way of intercepting ballistic inbound track
would be with lasers. They would heat up the war-head
to the point it exploded. However, at this time the
technology is not there. I'm talking about a free-electron laser
btw.(In case you're interested).

Godspeed

 

[lt1yw]

Intercept

"You guys are arguing about something you have
no knowledge about.

2 Things guys:

1. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!"

That may be true, but the defense shield that was discussed was to intercept very soon after deployment, on the way up when it is not going nearly as fast. That would be the only way to effectively target the missle.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Fonz,

Have you even been reading te thread? Almost every post is pointing out the near-impossibility of the system. Some of us have SEEN earthbound systems fail.

Trying to make yourself feel smart again? Sick of doing that on the anabolics board? I am

 

[RyanH]

Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said this morning on Meet The Press, that the technology does exist for a missile defense system. ........Is he B.Sing?

 

[peter8581]

. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!

It enters the atmosphere, then separates.
The warhead is made of Uranium(pure) which is
VERY DENSE and you'd have to nail it with a VERY
BIG explosive to destroy it.
It would have to be a skin-skin kill too.
Big explosive=extra weight=less manouverability=
not a chance of hitting the target.

To sum it up:
There is NO CHANCE of intercepting it.

A laser shoots at the speed of light. with the right calculations and technology you can easily hit a warhead

 

[jja]

**And why the fuck would we care how other countries FEEL about it...that's the lamest friggin' point. Argue money, argue effectiveness, BUT don't argue "foreign relations" when it comes to defending American soil!!

How the fuck can you not argue foreign relations? There are 6+ billion people in the world and only about 270 million of them are American. We may be a very rich country, but we still can't do whatever we damn well please.

And, aside from the fact that it would piss off the rest of the world, the software to control such a huge system just isn't there. It would always be much easier for enemies to bypass the software than for us to maintain it in the face of new wartime attacks.

 

[Champ]

There were alot of fantastic achievements made from the starwars program. Lasers for example wouldnt be at their current level of sophistication if there werent millions of dollars poured into the starwars program. These advances made cd players and heart surgeries with lasers possible.
Whether it is possible to build a space missile defense or not, this is the only way that the american public is going to approve of R&D money for experimental technologies unless they are promised somthing like a missile defense.

Champ - not to flame you - but anyone who has ever served in the military can tell you that better technology is not what we need to win the war, which is after all, the military's mission.

No Flame taken Matt. I thought that the Gulf war was won becuase of superior technology. But then again I only thought that from what I saw on TV.
but, WW2, nuclear bomb....

I agree that the money could be used for better purposes in the military instead of the sheild sucking it up for a decade.

I say, give us back 200 bucks instead of 300 for the tax break. Take the other 100 and use it for the shield.