• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Missile-Defense System Test Succeeds

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,423
Reaction score
619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Great news!! Another successful test of the defense system the left and the Dems have been trying to halt for 30 years saying it was impossible.

Another reason we can't trust our national security to their doings.

My Way News - Missile-Defense System Test Succeeds[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

HONOLULU (AP) - The military shot down a Scud-type missile in this year's second successful test of a new technology meant to knock down ballistic missiles in their final minute of flight, the Missile Defense Agency said Friday.[/FONT]
 
Given these guys have a long history of lies and deception, taking their word at face value would not be wise. Furthermore, 2 out of 3 is not really a great success rate even assuming they are telling the truth. Finally, why should we care about stopping scuds? America has no enemies within scud range. The insane costs far outweigh any marginal benefit. They are still useless at stopping ICBMs. We should be spending our military funding on dragonskin body armor and up-armoring vehicles, not colossal wastes like this.
 

Great. So if any other country ever decides to fire a single missile with no evasive capabilities at us, and alerts us ahead of time so we can prepare, it's nice to know that we'll be protected. :roll:

Yep, surely THIS is the best use of the billions of dollars the military pours into this boondoggle.
 
rathi said:
Given these guys have a long history of lies .........
Click to expand...


And all you have are baseless accusations. You just can't stand it can you.
 
Kandahar said:
Great. So if any other country ever decides to fire a single missile with no evasive capabilities at us, and alerts us ahead of time so we can prepare, it's nice to know that we'll be protected.
Click to expand...

Yes isn't it since no ballistic missile has evasive capabilites, you have no evidence to support your conclusion that our MDS will not be able to be any evasive system if any were ever developed or that we will not have multiple system to fire at multiple targets.

Just the type of specious arguments that were given years ago when your side claim we'd never be able to hit a missile in flight.

Yep, surely THIS is the best use of the billions of dollars the military pours into this boondoggle.
Click to expand...

Just can't stand that it works.
 
Stinger said:
And all you have are baseless accusations. You just can't stand it can you.
Click to expand...

Likewise it a lot of others here have been taking almost every possible opportunity available to smear the left and only the left.... The right is no less infalliable to error, it's just easier based on the fringes.. Let's cool it.

I personally find this defense system in having a lot of potential, and hope the capabilities are extended to our benefit, and only when/where it is beneficial.
 

I always thought making something better took steps? You know, like going from a Ford Model T to a Ford GT... took a little while. Sorry that not everything works perfectly right away, but then again I'm sure you are arguing because you are smart enough to perfect everything in the world right away without having to take steps to understand it, right? :roll:
 

Bad analogy. When Ford was improving its cars, the roads weren't becoming increasingly difficult to drive. In the time it takes the NMD to improve, missiles improve too.

The amount of money it takes to build this thing, versus the amount of money it takes to subvert it, shows that this is a hopelessly impractical use of our limited resources. We'd be better off spending our defense money on less sexy things, like improving soldiers salaries, or giving them decent armor, or giving them hospitals that don't have mold growing in them.
 
Kandahar said:
Bad analogy. When Ford was improving its cars, the roads weren't becoming increasingly difficult to drive. In the time it takes the NMD to improve, missiles improve too.
Click to expand...

And who has a missile that can defeat the system? When did they test it against it?

The amount of money it takes to build this thing,
Click to expand...

Versus say replacing Los Angeles?

versus the amount of money it takes to subvert it,
Click to expand...

Who has done so? Which other country has a ICBM with a full compliment of SAM defenses, when did they test them?
shows that this is a hopelessly impractical use of our limited resources.
Click to expand...

Seems like a bargain to me.

We'd be better off spending our defense money on less sexy things, like improving soldiers salaries,
Click to expand...

So they can shoot them down with their rifles?

or giving them decent armor,
Click to expand...

Over Seattle?

or giving them hospitals that don't have mold growing in them.
Click to expand...

Where we can treat the victims?

Or we can shoot them down?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm which to choose.
 
What other country has ICBMs that the US has relations bad enough to go to war with right now?
 
We have had good tests for the last 20 years, but we do not have this system deployed. We are wasting so much in Iraq, that things like a defense system have not important to Bush and the Companies he supports with Tax money. tis true that after the Cold War ended, there was not much incentive to have a missle defense. What is the incentive to have one now,??? none according to Garp and King George. We use to have some patriot missles which worked on land and some ships, but I read that King George did not approve of them because Exxon Mobile and Haliburton could not make profit from them.
 
And all you have are baseless accusations. You just can't stand it can you.
Click to expand...

The Patriot Missile. Performance in the Gulf War Reviewed. Perhaps "lies" was the wrong word, but the deception is quite clear. Its true that I can't stand it when we waste money on some useless defense system while our soldiers are dying because they don't have the best equipment. Body and vehicle armor should be the top concern for funding right now. Of course, given the horrible corruption in our defense industry, its hardly surprising that unprofitable things like armor get ignored in favor of bigger more profitable projects.


What other country has ICBMs that the US has relations bad enough to go to war with right now?
Click to expand...

A Scud is not an ICBM. They do not have the range. The patriot was not tested against a real ICBM. You are correct that none of our enemies possess ICBMs though.
 
What would make me really happy is if we would take this guys suggestion here...
Build antimissile shield together: Russian lawmaker

 
dragonslayer said:
We have had good tests for the last 20 years, but we do not have this system deployed.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the Democrats and Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

We are wasting so much in Iraq,
Click to expand...

One has nothing to do with the other.
 
RightOfCenter said:
What other country has ICBMs that the US has relations bad enough to go to war with right now?
Click to expand...

If we waited till "right now" to develope new weapons system we wouldn' be around "right now".
 
Stinger said:
I suppose if Hitler and Tojo had wanted to get the A bomb from us that would have made you happy too?

How about if we had transferred our much better sonar technology to the USSR during the cold war or MIRV technology?
Click to expand...

We're currently placing parts of the missile shield in countries like the Czech Republic or Poland, so why would it be any different if we placed some in Russia? The purpose of the missile shield is to protect from rogue states launching one missile. If for some ungodly reason Russia decided to attack us, the missile shield would be like trying to fight off a wrestler with a fly swatter. But by expanding it to Russia, we would garner an increased level of protection, as well as defuse a situation that has caused serious instability with a necessary ally.

And please tell me you see the huge distinction between:

a) Giving a completely revolutionary technology that could be easily used to destroy our country to murderous dictators who we're at war with, and

b) Placing portions of a technological project in an allied country who has similar technology already (if a few years behind), no desire to fight us, and could already destroy us a thousand times over if they wanted to regardless of what we do.
 
RightOfCenter said:
What other country has ICBMs that the US has relations bad enough to go to war with right now?
Click to expand...
Isn't it tad better to possess some foresight? The Iranian Shahab-7 (prototype being tested) will have the strategic range to target the US Atlantic coast states. Scheduled to be in Iran's inventory by 2009.
 
Isn't it tad better to possess some foresight? The Iranian Shahab-7 (prototype being tested) will have the strategic range to target the US Atlantic coast states. Scheduled to be in Iran's inventory by 2009.
Click to expand...

What exactly are this new missiles properties? Could you post a link to its specs?
Anything with the range to get from Iran to the Atlantic will almost certainly be beyond the patriots ability to intercept it. The costs are not worth it. The risk of Iran shooting them at us is quite low, the costs are extremely high preventing Iran from manufacturing very many, and with conventional warheads the damage will be limited. Furthermore ICBMs are fired from fixed sites, making them easy to locate or attack.
 
Stinger said:
Thanks to the Democrats and Bill Clinton and Al Gore.



One has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that Clinton and Gore have been in office for the last 7 years. Thanks for clearing up that bit of history.
 
RightatNYU states the absolute truth.

If we do not include Russia in the development of this technology or if we put this system in eastern Europe over their objections, then there is a very real possibility that Putin will withdraw from START II ABM treaty. If that happens, were in another Cold War with very grave circumstances this time given our cowboy President.
 
rathi said:
What exactly are this new missiles properties? Could you post a link to its specs?
Click to expand...
Iran uses NK missile technology and guards information about modifications. It is very difficult to obtain current information about the Shahab-7. Be aware that the information on the page below is very dated (2002).

Iran Missiles
 
You people keep forgetting that this technology DOESN'T WORK and never will, because the ways to *avoid* the NMD are developing much more quickly and cheaply than the NMD is.

If it somehow makes Russia feel more comfortable to be on board, who cares? If Russia wants to feel like our ally under the protection of our Loch Ness Monster Repellent, why not let them? Maybe they'll pick up the tab for some of this boondoggle, so I don't have to.
 
RightatNYU said:
We're currently placing parts of the missile shield in countries like the Czech Republic or Poland, so why would it be any different if we placed some in Russia?
Click to expand...

Where they could gain control of them.............no thank you.

The purpose of the missile shield is to protect from rogue states launching one missile.
Click to expand...

Against us.

If for some ungodly reason Russia decided to attack us, the missile shield would be like trying to fight off a wrestler with a fly swatter.
Click to expand...

We can build missiles faster than they can.

But by expanding it to Russia, we would garner an increased level of protection, as well as defuse a situation that has caused serious instability with a necessary ally.
Click to expand...

It's leverage for us.


b) Placing portions of a technological project in an allied

When Russia has become our ally let me know.
 
Stinger said:
Where they could gain control of them.............no thank you.
Click to expand...

What do you think they're going to do? Somehow use the missile shield to protect themselves from us? You realize that no matter who controls the missile shield, it couldn't do anything to stop either the US or Russia from killing anyone, right?

Against us.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't let Russia help pay for the program and protect themselves too? If we let dozens of other countries, like Poland and the Czech Republic in, why not Russia?



We can build missiles faster than they can.
Click to expand...

So? We can both already destroy the world 10 times over. There's no point to an arms race once you cross a certain threshold.

It's leverage for us.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? It destabilizes a relationship with a friendly nation and causes problems when we most certainly need all the support we can get globally (especially from other veto-wielding members on the SC)

When Russia has become our ally let me know.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What would you consider Russia to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…